DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 7-8 are canceled. Claims 1-6 & 9-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 & 9-10 are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 11/25/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments amount to piecemeal analysis of the prior art, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Applicant’s arguments first address the MIYA reference individually (see Remarks at 9-10) and then address the OKUTANI reference individually (see Remarks at 10), without addressing how MIYA is modified in view of OKUTANI (see 8/27/2025 Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 22-23).
Applicant contends that:
OKUTANI is merely cited for the limitation "a position where the liquid is supplied moves with the nozzle" and the frozen film is sequentially thawed "in a same direction as the nozzle moves." OKUTANI is silent as to any controller which is capable of moving the nozzle in the way as recited in the amended claim 1. (Remarks at 10)
This is an incomplete representation of the § 103 rejection because it fails to address that OKUTANI still teaches the same manner of supplying a liquid (e.g., water) to the substrate as recited in Claim 1. Paragraphs 21-22 of the 08/27/2025 Non-Final Action are reproduced below:
[¶ 21] OKUTANI teaches supplying a liquid (e.g., water) to a substrate under the control of a controller (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0117), just like the present application. OKUTANI teaches supplying the liquid to the substrate from a nozzle (see id., DI water from nozzle 24), and moving the nozzle from a perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate to a rotation center vicinity of the substrate by controlling a moving part (see id., controlling mechanism 30 to move nozzle 24), wherein a position where the liquid is supplied moves with the nozzle (see id.). This manner of supplying the liquid while moving the nozzle still allows the liquid (e.g., water) to spread over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see id.).
[¶ 22] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify MIYA’s controller (control unit 97) to combine the step of moving the nozzle (e.g., moving nozzle 411 from the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity to the substrate’s rotation center vicinity) with the step of supplying the liquid (e.g., supplying DI water to the rotating substrate having the frozen film thereon), with reasonable expectation of spreading water over the substrate. MIYA already teaches a step of moving the nozzle and a step of supplying the liquid from the nozzle to the substrate, and it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to move a nozzle from a substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity to the substrate’s rotation center vicinity while the nozzle supplies a liquid (e.g., water) to the substrate, thereby spreading the liquid over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see OKUTANI) . . .
As explained in ¶¶ 21-22 of the Non-Final Action, OKUTANI teaches supplying water to the substrate’s peripheral edge, and moving the nozzle—while the nozzle continues to supply water—towards the substrate’s center of rotation. In other words, OKUTANI still teaches the recited manner of supplying water to the substrate.
Applicant contends that “OKUTANI relates to etching a sacrificial film formed on the substrate and is nothing to do with thawing the frozen film” (Remarks at 10). To the extent that Applicant is suggesting OKUTANI is not analogous art, this is not persuasive. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if either prong is met: “(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Here, OKUTANI can satisfy either prong. OKUTANI is from the field of substrate processing or treatment, just like the claimed invention; thus OKUTANI is analogous art under the first prong. OKUTANI also teaches how to supply DI water to the substrate—in particular, OKUTANI discloses the same manner of supplying DI water to the substrate as the claimed invention—so OKUTANI is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor; thus OKUTANI is analogous art under the second prong.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims do not present anything tailored for those dependent claims (see Remarks at 11). Therefore, the remaining arguments do not amount to a sufficient rebuttal of the prior art rejection of Claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
As explained in previous Office Action(s), this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitations are:
“placement part” in claim 1.
“moving part” in claims 1-3, 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“placement part” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a rotatable platform, and equivalents thereof.
“moving part” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a movable arm, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
In Claim 1 on pg. 3 line 5, “supply liquid” should be changed to “supply the liquid.”
Claim 1 recites “discharged to outside of the substrate” (pg. 3 line 10), whereas Claim 9 recites “discharged outside the substrate” (line 3). Applicant should pick one style and use it consistently across the claims.
Claim 10 recites “a rotation center of the substrate” at line 3. It should be changed to “the center of rotation of the substrate” for consistency with Claim 1.
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 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “peripheral edge side” on pg. 3 lines 1-6. It’s unclear what’s meant by “peripheral edge side,” as this term does not appear in the specification. The term recited in previous version of Claim 1 was “perimeter edge vicinity,” so it’s unclear what’s the difference between “peripheral edge side” and “perimeter edge vicinity.” Also, the three words—peripheral, edge, and side—generally have the same/similar meaning, so it’s unclear which particular location is being recited. Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, “peripheral edge side” is interpreted to mean interchangeably: a peripheral part of the substrate, an edge of the substrate, or a side of the substrate.
Claim 1 recites “moving the nozzle that continues to supply liquid toward a center of rotation of the substrate…” on pg. 3 line 5-6. It’s unclear which noun—nozzle or liquid—corresponds to the word “toward.” Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as the nozzle, i.e., the nozzle is moving toward a center of rotation of the substrate, while the nozzle continues to supply the liquid.
Claim 1 recites “the peripheral edge side of the frozen film” on pg. 3 line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term, as the claim earlier recites “a peripheral edge side of the substrate” on pg. 3 line 1.
Claim 1 recites “the liquid generated by thawing the frozen film” on pg. 3 lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 3 recites “the rotation center vicinity” at line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 3 recites “the perimeter edge vicinity” at lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claims 3-6 recite “perimeter edge vicinity,” whereas Claim 1 recites “peripheral edge side.” The difference between the two terms is unclear. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 depends on Claim 8, which is now canceled, thereby rendering Claim 9 indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “perimeter edge” (line 3), whereas Claim 1 recites “peripheral edge side.” The difference between the two terms is unclear. Clarification is requested.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYA et al. (US PGPUB 20120175819), in view of OKUTANI et al. (US PGPUB 20160254162).
Regarding Claim 1, MIYA teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (processing unit 91, see, e.g., Figs. 6-15, ¶¶ 0074-76, 0119).
As a preliminary matter, the claim language of “incorporating, into a frozen film, a contaminant adhered to a surface of a substrate by forming the frozen film by freezing a liquid film formed at the surface of the substrate” in the preamble is interpreted as the intended use of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP § 2111.02.II. Indeed, the recited “substrate” is interpreted as the article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP § 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements; “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”).
In any event, MIYA’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions. In particular, MIYA teaches that its apparatus can form a frozen film by freezing a liquid film formed at a surface of a substrate, wherein the frozen film incorporates therein a contaminant adhered to the surface of the substrate (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0009, 0011, 0159, 0171, 0174, discussing freeze cleaning to remove particles).
MIYA teaches that the frozen film is formed over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see ¶¶ 0154, 0160), which means a peripheral edge side of the frozen film is aligned with or in close proximity to a peripheral edge side of the substrate.
MIYA’s apparatus (processing unit 91, see Figs. 6-15) comprises:
a placement part (substrate holder 11) configured to rotate the substrate (see ¶¶ 0075, 0086, 0089, 0148);
a liquid supply part (melter 41) including a nozzle (nozzle 411, see Fig. 12, ¶ 0119), the liquid supply part being configured to supply a liquid (DI water or “DIW”) via the nozzle (nozzle 411) to the frozen film including the contaminant (see ¶¶ 0119, 0172-74);
a moving part (nozzle driving mechanism 413 comprising arm 423 and rotation driver 419) configured to move a position of the nozzle in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0119-22); and
a controller (control unit 97) configured to control a rotation of the substrate by the placement part (see, e.g., Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0087, 0089, 0148, 0161, 0170), a supply of the liquid by the liquid supply part (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0123, 0172), and a movement of the nozzle by the moving part (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0122, 0143, 0172-75).
MIYA teaches that the controller (control unit 97) rotating the substrate by controlling the placement part (see, e.g., Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0087, 0089, 0148, 0161, 0170).
MIYA teaches that the controller (control unit 97) moving the nozzle (nozzle 411) toward a peripheral edge side of the substrate by controlling the moving part. See Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0122, 0143, 0172-75, by using nozzle driving mechanism 413, the control unit moves nozzle 411—which has a rotation axis A4—between a standby/retracted position that’s radially outside cup 210 and a processing position that’s above the substrate’s center, which means that nozzle 411 moves toward a peripheral edge side of the substrate; see also arrows T1 and T2 in Fig. 19 for a better understanding of how nozzle 411 moves about its rotation axis A4 in Fig. 12.
MIYA teaches that the controller (control unit 97) supplying the liquid to the frozen film on the peripheral edge side of the substrate (see ¶¶ 0171, 0174, centrifugal force of the rotating substrate causes DIW to spread over the entire upper surface of the substrate) by controlling the liquid supply part (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0123, 0172, supplying DIW from nozzle 411). MIYA teaches the liquid is supplied onto the frozen film so as to thaw the frozen film (see ¶¶ 0172-74) and remove contaminants/particles (see ¶¶ 0077, 0171, 0174).
MIYA teaches that the liquid supplied from the nozzle and the liquid generated by thawing the frozen film being discharged to outside of the substrate (see ¶ 0174, centrifugal force of the rotating substrate causes liquids on the substrate’s surface to scatter).
MIYA teaches that various changes may be made to its invention (¶ 0239).
MIYA does not explicitly teach:
“moving the nozzle that continues to supply liquid toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the peripheral edge side of the frozen film by controlling the moving part and the liquid supply part”;
“the frozen film sequentially being thawed in a same direction as the nozzle moves”;
the liquids are discharged to outside of the substrate “without being shielded by the frozen film.”
OKUTANI teaches supplying a liquid (e.g., DIW) to a substrate under the control of a controller (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0117), just like the present application. OKUTANI teaches a moving part (mechanism 30 that swings nozzle arm 29, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0072) and a liquid supply part including a nozzle (nozzle 24, see id.), both of which are controlled by the controller (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0062, 0117). OKUTANI teaches supplying the liquid from the nozzle (DIW from nozzle 24) to the peripheral edge side of the substrate (see ¶ 0117), and moving the nozzle (nozzle 24) that continues to supply liquid toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the peripheral edge side of the substrate (see ¶ 0117) by controlling the moving part and the liquid supply part (see id.). This manner of supplying the liquid while moving the nozzle—i.e., moving from the substrate’s peripheral edge side towards the substrate’s center of rotation—allows the liquid to reach the whole area of the substrate’s surface to wash out contaminants (see ¶ 0117).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify MIYA’s controller (control unit 97) to combine the step of moving the nozzle (e.g., moving MIYA’s nozzle 411 from the substrate’s peripheral edge side to the substrate’s rotation center) with the step of supplying the liquid (e.g., supplying DIW to the rotating substrate having the frozen film thereon)—i.e., moving nozzle 411 that continues to supply liquid (DIW) toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the peripheral edge side of the substrate by controlling the moving part and the liquid supply part—with reasonable expectation of spreading water over the substrate.
MIYA already teaches a step of moving nozzle 411 from the substrate’s peripheral edge side to the substrate’s rotation center (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0122, 0143, 0172-75) and a step of supplying DIW from nozzle 411 to the substrate (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0123, 0171-74) to spread DIW over the substrate’s upper surface (see id.), wherein MIYA teaches that various changes may be made to its invention (¶ 0239). And it’s already well known in the prior art to supply DIW from a nozzle to the substrate’s peripheral edge side, and moving the nozzle—which continues to supply DIW—from the substrate’s peripheral edge side towards the substrate’s center of rotation, thereby spreading DIW over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see OKUTANI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. Here, the moving step and the supplying step (as combined) would still serve the same functions as before (e.g., moving nozzle and supplying DIW), thereby yielding the predictable results of spreading DIW over the entire upper surface of the substrate.
In the resulting combination of MIYA and OKUTANI:
the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) would be configured to control the moving part (MIYA’s nozzle driving mechanism 413) and the liquid supply part (MIYA’s nozzle 411), so as to move the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411)—which continues to supply DIW to the substrate—from the substrate’s peripheral edge side towards the substrate’s rotation center;
because the frozen film is formed over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see MIYA at ¶¶ 0154, 0160)—i.e., a peripheral edge side of the frozen film is aligned with or in close proximity to a peripheral edge side of the substrate (as explained above)—MIYA nozzle 411 is moved from “near the peripheral edge side of the frozen film” towards the substrate’s rotation center;
because the frozen film is thawed by DIW supplied from MIYA’s nozzle 411 (see MIYA at ¶¶ 0171-74) and nozzle 411 is moved across the substrate, this means “the frozen film sequentially being thawed in a same direction as the nozzle moves”;
because DIW is first supplied to the substrate’s peripheral edge side to thaw the frozen film thereon (as explained above)—the frozen film is sequentially thawed starting from the frozen film’s peripheral edge side—the centrifugal force of the rotating substrate would act upon any liquids on the substrate (see MIYA at ¶¶ 0171, 0174) to discharge the DIW supplied to the peripheral edge side and the liquid generated by thawing the frozen film at the peripheral edge side, which means those liquids would be discharged to outside of the substrate “without being shieled by the frozen film.”
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. The combination teaches that, by controlling the moving part (MIYA’s nozzle driving mechanism 413 comprising arm 423 and rotation driver 419), the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) sets a movement speed of the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) to be constant or changes the movement speed of the nozzle (see MIYA at ¶¶ 0120-22, nozzle 411 is moved by pivoting arm 423, which is rotated by rotation driver 419, which is controlled by control unit 97; this means control unit 97 controls the movement speed of nozzle 411).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the liquid supplied from the nozzle and the liquid generated by the thawing of the frozen film are discharged outside the substrate by a centrifugal force (see MIYA at ¶¶ 0171, 0174).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. The combination teaches that, by controlling the moving part (MIYA’s nozzle driving mechanism 413 comprising arm 423 and rotation driver 419), the controller moves the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) from a position of a perimeter edge of the substrate to a rotation center of the substrate (as explained above).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of FUJII et al. (US PGPUB 20140197129).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) controls the movement speed of the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) through the moving part (e.g., MIYA’s rotation driver 419).
The combination does not explicitly teach: by controlling the moving part, the controller sets “a movement speed of the nozzle at the rotation center vicinity of the substrate to be faster than the movement speed of the nozzle at the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate.”
But it’s well known in the prior art to move a nozzle at a faster speed at the substrate’s rotation center vicinity and move the nozzle at a slower speed at the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity. See FUJII at Fig. 10, ¶¶ 0115-20. By adjusting the nozzle’s movement speed according to its location above the substrate, it’s possible to improve the uniformity of a liquid supplied from the nozzle to the substrate (see id. at ¶¶ 0116, 0120).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI such that the controller (by controlling the moving part) sets a movement speed of the nozzle at the rotation center vicinity of the substrate to be faster than the movement speed of the nozzle at the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate, with reasonable expectation of improving uniformity.
First, by adjusting the nozzle’s movement speed according to its location above the substrate—e.g., faster speed at the substrate’s rotation center vicinity and slower speed at the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity—it’s possible to improve the uniformity of a liquid supplied from the nozzle to the substrate. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to configure the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) to set the nozzle’s movement speed according to the nozzle’s location.
Second, it’s well known in the prior art for the nozzle to have a faster movement speed at the substrate’s rotation center vicinity and a slower movement speed at the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity (see FUJII). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of MIYA, OKUTANI, and FUJII: by controlling the moving part (e.g., MIYA’s rotation driver 419), the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) sets a movement speed of the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) at the substrate’s rotation center vicinity to be faster than the movement speed of the nozzle at the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of MIYA, OKUTANI, and FUJII teaches the apparatus according to claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the movement speed of the nozzle at the rotation center vicinity of the substrate is 2 times the movement speed of the nozzle at the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate (see FUJII at Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of MIYA, OKUTANI, and FUJII teaches the apparatus according to claim 3. The combination teaches that, by controlling the moving part, the controller increases the movement speed of the nozzle in stages (see FUJII at Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of MIYA, OKUTANI, and FUJII teaches the apparatus according to claim 3. As explained above, the combination teaches moving the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) over the frozen film (see MIYA at Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0122, 0143, 0172-75).
As explained above, the combination teaches that the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) sets the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) to have a faster movement speed at the substrate’s rotation center vicinity, which means the nozzle has a shorter duration of movement over the frozen film at the rotation center vicinity, and sets the nozzle to have a slower movement speed at the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity, which means the nozzle has a longer duration of movement over the frozen film at the perimeter edge vicinity. In other words, the combination teaches that “a duration of the movement of the nozzle over the frozen film at the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate is greater than a duration of the movement of the nozzle over the frozen film at the rotation center vicinity of the substrate.”
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MATSUSHITA et al. (US PGPUB 20160322241) teaches that when a nozzle is not supplying fluid to the substrate, the nozzle waits at a standby/retracted position outside an edge of a peripheral side of the substrate, and in order to supply fluid to the substrate, the nozzle is moved from the standby/retracted position to a position above the substrate (see ¶¶ 0056-57).
KIM et al. (US PGPUB 20220208569) teaches that when a nozzle is not supplying fluid to the substrate, the nozzle waits at a standby/retracted position outside an edge of a peripheral side of the substrate, and in order to supply fluid to the substrate, the nozzle is moved from the standby/retracted position to a position above the substrate (see ¶ 0091, Fig. 11).
MITSUHASHI et al. (US PGPUB 20070183775) teaches that when a nozzle is not supplying fluid to the substrate, the nozzle waits at a standby/retracted position outside an edge of a peripheral side of the substrate, and in order to supply fluid to the substrate, the nozzle is moved from the standby/retracted position to a position above the substrate (see ¶ 0109, Figs. 12A-12C).
YOSHIDA et al. (US PGPUB 20060151112) teaches that when a nozzle is not supplying fluid to the substrate, the nozzle waits at a standby/retracted position outside an edge of a peripheral side of the substrate, and in order to supply fluid to the substrate, the nozzle is moved from the standby/retracted position to a position above the substrate (see ¶ 0143, Figs. 8-9).
KOGA et al. (US PGPUB 20060092990) teaches that when a nozzle is not supplying fluid to the substrate, the nozzle waits at a standby/retracted position outside an edge of a peripheral side of the substrate, and in order to supply fluid to the substrate, the nozzle is moved from the standby/retracted position to a position above the substrate (see ¶¶ 0081, 0097, Fig. 2).
OGAWA et al. (US PGPUB 20050252526) teaches that when a nozzle is not supplying fluid to the substrate, the nozzle waits at a standby/retracted position outside an edge of a peripheral side of the substrate, and in order to supply fluid to the substrate, the nozzle is moved from the standby/retracted position to a position above the substrate (see ¶ 0011, Fig. 2).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714