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 2, 10, 17 and 18 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.
Claims 2 and 17 recite the limitation: “…the isolation space is configured so that a distance according to a moving direction of the rear nozzle is greater than or equal to a moving distance of the rear nozzle”. It is unclear what distance is being claimed to be greater than or equal to a moving distance of the nozzle (e.g. it is unclear whether or not the claimed “distance” is between two points inside the isolation space, between one point inside the isolation space and another point outside the isolation space, or between two points outside the isolation space).
Claim 10 recites the limitation: “…at least one isolation space arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a moving direction..” in lines 2-4. It is unclear how a single isolation space can be spaced apart from itself. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation reads: “…at least two isolation spaces arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a moving direction…”
Claim 18 recites the limitation "…the other end of the connection rod…" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Matsumoto (US20090038641). Matsumoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a support unit 51 capable of supporting a substrate W (see figures 1-2, paragraph [0074]); a rear nozzle unit installation unit 53 including a sidewall (see wall of 53b into which 54 is inserted, as shown in figure 5) surrounding the support unit 51 and forming an internal space 53d (see figures 1-3, 5, paragraphs [0074], [0090]-[0097]); a rear nozzle unit 53c including a rear nozzle 53e disposed outside of the sidewall capable of supplying liquid toward a rear surface of the substrate W (see figure 5, paragraphs [0074], [0093]-[0097]). Matsumoto does not teach that the rear nozzle is movably disposed and a rear nozzle driving unit. Kishita et al. (US20140261163) teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and that the rear nozzle 800/900 may be movable by a drive unit 802/903 in a radial direction of the support unit 4, 11-13 passing through a center of the support chuck 4, 11 from outside of the sidewall (see vertical inner wall of 21, as shown in figures 11 and 21) to supply liquid toward a rear surface of the substrate, allowing for greater control of the direction of spray (see figures 11, 21, paragraphs [0060], [0084]). Since both Matsumoto and Kishita et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses with rear nozzles it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the rear nozzle in the system by Matsumoto may be movable by a rear nozzle driving unit so as to allow for greater control of the direction of spray, as shown to be known and conventional by Kishita et al. Matsumoto fails to teach/disclose the following limitations of independent claims 1, 15 and 19, including the following limitations of claim 1: “…rear nozzle driving unit connected to the rear nozzle through a partial sidewall portion of the sidewall in the internal space and driving the rear nozzle to move; and a liquid inflow preventing unit disposed on the partial sidewall portion of the sidewall and including an isolation space isolated from the internal space”, the following limitations of claim 15: “…a connection rod connected to the rear nozzle through a partial sidewall portion of the sidewall in the internal space and driving the rear nozzle to move, and the liquid inflow preventing unit includes an isolation wall connected to the partial sidewall portion of the sidewall, having an isolation space isolated from the internal space, and penetrated by the connection rod; and a sealing member preventing liquid from flowing into the internal space from a gap between the isolation wall and the rear nozzle driving unit”, and the following limitations of claim 19: “…a connection rod connected to the rear nozzle through a partial sidewall portion of the sidewall in the internal space and driving the rear nozzle to move… the liquid inflow preventing unit includes an isolation wall connected to the partial sidewall portion of the sidewall, forming an isolation space isolated from the internal space, and penetrated by the connection rod and a sealing member preventing liquid from flowing into the internal space from a gap between the isolation wall and the rear nozzle driving unit”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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 BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights