DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed on 05/27/2026 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission (e.g., claims, Remarks) filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation of “placement part” is withdrawn. The claim objections are withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 5/1/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered. Applicant contends that the prior art of record (see Remarks at 10-11) does not teach certain limitations (e.g., a storage part that stores a control program). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated prior-art rejections below.
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:
“moving part” in claims 1-3, 5, 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.
“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 9 line 3, “outside the substrate” should be “outside 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 “the operation” at line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “near the perimeter edge vicinity” on pg. 3 line 2. It’s unclear what’s meant by this clause. First, the term “near” does not appear in the specification. Indeed, the word “near” was first introduced in the 11/25/2025 claim amendments in the context of “near the peripheral edge side.” Second, the word “vicinity” also means “near,” so it’s unclear which location is being recited by using both “near” and “vicinity.” Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “a center of rotation of the substrate” on pg. 3 line 1-2 and “the center of the substrate” on pg. 3 line 6. It’s unclear if they are the same location or different locations. Clarification is requested. If they are different locations, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the center of the substrate.”
Claim 1 recites on pg. 3 lines 4-9:
the frozen film sequentially being thawed in a same direction as the nozzle moves, a peripheral edge of the frozen film thawed by the liquid supplied from the nozzle, an edge of an unthawed frozen film moving toward the center of the substrate as the nozzle moves,
the liquid supplied from the nozzle and a liquid generated by thawing the frozen film being discharged to outside of the substrate without being shielded by a still-unthawed frozen film.
The difference(s) between “frozen film,” “unthawed frozen film,” and “still-unthawed frozen film” are unclear. The specification does not use the words “unthawed” and “still-unthawed.” Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, “frozen film,” “unthawed frozen film,” and “still-unthawed frozen film” are interpreted as the same.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.
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 the technique of “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 of the frozen film is aligned with or in close proximity to a perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate.
MIYA’s apparatus (processing unit 91, see Figs. 6-15) comprises:
a placement platform (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 (deionized water, also called “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 (nozzle 411) 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 platform (see 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 the controller (control unit 97) has a storage part (memory, see ¶ 0139) that stores a control program (see ¶ 0139, memory stores a program to be executed by the CPU) that controls the operation of the placement platform, the liquid supply part, and the moving part (see ¶ 0139; as explained above, control unit 97 controls the placement platform, the liquid supply part, and the moving part).
MIYA teaches the controller (control unit 97) performs the following operations based on the control program stored in the storage part (see ¶ 0139):
rotating the substrate by controlling the placement platform (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0087, 0089, 0148, 0161, 0170);
moving the nozzle (nozzle 411) toward a perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate by controlling the moving part (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0122, 0143, 0172-75, control unit 97 controls nozzle driving mechanism 413 to move 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 perimeter edge vicinity 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);
supplying the liquid to the frozen film on the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate (see ¶¶ 0171, 0174, DIW is supplied to the rotating substrate, wherein centrifugal force causes DIW to spread over the entire upper surface of the substrate, including the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate) by controlling the liquid supply part (see Fig. 12, ¶¶ 0123, 0172, supplying DIW from nozzle 411).
MIYA teaches that the liquid (DIW) 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: (1) the frozen film is formed over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see ¶¶ 0154, 0160); (2) the liquid supplied to the frozen film—for thawing and for removing contaminants—spreads over the entire upper surface of the substrate (see ¶ 0171, 0174).
MIYA teaches that the liquid supplied from the nozzle (DIW from nozzle 411) and the liquid generated by thawing the frozen film (melted water) are discharged to outside of the substrate (see ¶ 0174, centrifugal force of the rotating substrate causes liquids on the substrate’s upper surface to scatter).
MIYA teaches that various changes may be made to its invention (¶ 0239).
MIYA does not explicitly teach:
“moving the nozzle toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate by controlling the moving part and the liquid supply part, the nozzle continuing to supply the liquid”;
“the frozen film sequentially being thawed in a same direction as the nozzle moves, a peripheral edge of the frozen film thawed by the liquid supplied from the nozzle, an edge of an unthawed frozen film moving toward the center of the substrate as the nozzle moves”;
the liquids are discharged to outside of the substrate “without being shielded by a still-unthawed 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; thus OKUTANI is analogous. OKUTANI teaches a placement platform (spin base 15 of spin chuck 10, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0069), 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.), each component being controlled by the controller (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0062, 0108, 0117).
OKUTANI teaches that the controller performs:
rotating the substrate by controlling the placement platform (see ¶ 0108);
supplying the liquid from the nozzle (DIW from nozzle 24) to the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate by controlling the liquid supply part (see ¶ 0117);
moving the nozzle (nozzle 24) toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate (see ¶ 0117, moving nozzle 24 from the substrate’s peripheral portion to the substrate’s center portion) by controlling the moving part and the liquid supply part (see ¶ 0117), the nozzle continuing to supply the liquid (see ¶ 0117).
OKUTANI teaches that this technique of supplying the liquid to the rotating substrate while also moving the nozzle—specifically, moving the nozzle toward the substrate’s center of rotation from near the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity—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), via changes to the control program, to incorporate moving MIYA’s nozzle 411—i.e., moving the nozzle toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate by controlling the moving part—during MIYA’s liquid-supplying step (i.e., supplying DIW to the rotating substrate having the frozen film thereon), with reasonable expectation of spreading DIW over the substrate.
First, the technique of supplying DIW to the rotating substrate while also moving the nozzle (specifically, moving toward the substrate’s center of rotation from near the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity) allows DIW to reach the whole area of the substrate’s surface to wash out contaminants. Given these benefits, one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to move MIYA’s nozzle 411 while the nozzle continues to supply DIW to the substrate.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art to supply DIW from a nozzle to a rotating substrate (see MIYA; see OKUTANI); and it’s also known in the prior art to move the nozzle (i.e., toward the substrate’s center of rotation from near the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity) while the nozzle continues to supply DIW (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, by moving MIYA’s nozzle 411 while the nozzle continues to supply DIW, the nozzle still performs the same functions as before (e.g., supplying DIW to the substrate), 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—via changes to the control program—to move the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) toward a center of rotation of the substrate from near the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate by controlling the moving part (MIYA’s nozzle driving mechanism 413) and the liquid supply part (MIYA’s nozzle 411), while the nozzle continues to supply the liquid.
The remaining claim language is interpreted as intended results/outcomes:
the frozen film sequentially being thawed in a same direction as the nozzle moves, a peripheral edge of the frozen film thawed by the liquid supplied from the nozzle, an edge of an unthawed frozen film moving toward the center of the substrate as the nozzle moves,
the liquid supplied from the nozzle and a liquid generated by thawing the frozen film being discharged to outside of the substrate without being shielded by a still-unthawed frozen film.
That’s because the above language does not require the controller to perform any further actions in addition to the claimed steps already discussed above. In particular:
(1) the outcome of the frozen film being thawed is achieved by the claimed action of supplying the liquid to the frozen film, i.e., no further action is required to thaw the frozen film;
(2) the outcome of a peripheral edge of the frozen film being thawed is achieved by the claimed action of supplying the liquid to the frozen film on the perimeter edge vicinity, i.e., no further action is required to thaw the frozen film’s peripheral edge;
(3) the outcome of the frozen film being sequentially thawing (i.e., an edge of an unthawed frozen film moving toward the center) is achieved by the claimed actions of moving the nozzle while the nozzle continues to supply the liquid, i.e., no further action is required to thaw the frozen film sequentially;
(4) the outcome of liquids being discharged to outside of the substrate is achieved by the claimed action of rotating the substrate and supplying the liquid to the frozen film, i.e., no further action is required; and
(5) the outcome of liquids being discharged to outside of the substrate (without being shielded by a still-unthawed frozen film) is achieved by the claimed actions of rotating the substrate, supplying the liquid to the frozen film, and moving the nozzle while also supplying the liquid, i.e., no further action is required.
Because the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI teaches all the claimed actions or steps performed by the controller (i.e., rotating the substrate…; moving the nozzle toward the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity…; supplying the liquid to the frozen film on the perimeter edge vicinity…; moving the nozzle toward the substrate’s rotation center…the nozzle continuing to supply the liquid), the combination of MIYA and OKUTANI also teaches or reasonably suggests said intended results or outcomes, i.e., “the frozen film sequentially being thawed in a same direction as the nozzle moves, a peripheral edge of the frozen film thawed by the liquid supplied from the nozzle, an edge of an unthawed frozen film moving toward the center of the substrate as the nozzle moves” and the liquids “being discharged to outside of the substrate without being shielded by a still-unthawed 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 nozzle’s movement speed (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 the liquid supplied from the nozzle and the liquid generated by the thawing of the frozen film are discharged to outside of 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 (MIYA’s control unit 97) moves the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) from a position of the perimeter edge vicinity of the substrate to the center of rotation of the substrate (as explained above, the nozzle is moved from the substrate’s peripheral portion to its center portion).
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 a 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 already 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. This technique—adjusting the nozzle’s movement speed according to its location above the substrate—makes it possible to improve the uniformity of a liquid supplied from the nozzle to the substrate (see FUJII 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 (MIYA’s nozzle 411) at a 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 of the supplied liquid.
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 above the substrate.
Second, it’s already 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 the movement speed of the nozzle (MIYA’s nozzle 411) at the substrate’s rotation center vicinity is 2 times the movement speed of the nozzle at the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity (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 (e.g., MIYA’s rotation driver 419), the controller (MIYA’s control unit 97) 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) toward the substrate’s center of rotation from near the substrate’s perimeter edge vicinity, the substrate having a frozen film formed thereon (see MIYA at ¶¶ 0154, 0160). In other words, the combination teaches moving the nozzle over the frozen film.
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 a perimeter edge 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 a perimeter edge 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 a perimeter edge 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 a perimeter edge 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 a perimeter edge 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 a perimeter edge 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
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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights