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 § 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170052330) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20100046752) and McAlister (US 2011/0210182). All references to the written description of Lee et al. or Kim et al. refer to the attached machine translations into English (KR20170052330-MT and KR20100046752-MT, respectively).
Regarding claims 1-2, Lee et al. discloses an apparatus for supplying a treating material (500, Fig. 4), the apparatus comprising:
a nozzle (553) configured to discharge the treating material onto a substrate (Paragraph 0069);
a flow pipe (559) configured to channel the treating material to the nozzle (Paragraph 0071);
a single cut-off valve (600) connected to the flow pipe and configured to control the discharge of the treating material through the nozzle (600 is described as a single valve that can include one or both of valve elements 630 and 650, which each contribute to controlling discharge of the treating material through the nozzle; Paragraph 0072); and
a first controller (670, Fig. 5) configured to control a first opening and a first closing of the single cut-off valve (controls airflow to/from cylinder 633 via 679 and 671/672, Paragraphs 0091-0092).
Lee et al. further disclose that a second opening and a second closing of the single cut-off valve (control of airflow to/from cylinder 653 via 679 and 673/674, Paragraphs 0091 and 0093) are performed after a delay time has elapsed after the first opening and closing is completed (see Fig. 12; first opening and closing occurs during t1-t4, and second opening and closing begins at t5). However, Lee et al. do not describe the second opening and closing as being controlled by a second controller. Instead, Lee et al. describe control member 670 performing control of both the first and second openings/closings with a single controller 679. It is noted, however, that Lee et al. also teaches that valve 600 may optionally be configured to include only one of the elements 630 and 650 (Paragraph 0072).
Kim et al. teach a similar apparatus (Fig. 4) having a first controller (570a) and a second controller (570b) that perform functions similar to the single controller of Lee et al. (i.e., controlling airflow to/from a valve cylinder; see Page 10, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the apparatus of Lee et al. with a separate second controller for controlling the second opening and closing of the valve, as taught by Kim et al., in order to separate components that may be excluded from certain configurations of the device (i.e., valve element 650 with a dedicated second controller could be offered as an “add on” or “upgrade” to a configuration that includes only element 630 and the controller elements necessary to perform the first opening and closing of the valve).
Neither Lee et al. nor Kim et al. disclose a sensor attached at an end portion of the nozzle. McAlister teaches an apparatus (injector 110) having a nozzle (118), a flow pipe (123), and a cut-off valve (120), with a sensor (127) disposed at an end portion of the nozzle (Fig. 1). McAlister teaches that the sensor provides feedback to a controller (126) that enables adjustments to create desired characteristics of liquid discharge through the nozzle (e.g., 127 provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations; Paragraph 0020). Examiner notes that McAlister is directed to an apparatus for discharging fuel into a combustion chamber rather than discharging a treating material onto a substrate, but the teaching cited herein is pertinent to the instant application as a means of precisely controlling liquid discharge through a nozzle and associated flow path and valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of Lee et al., modified in view of Kim et al. as described above, with a sensor, as taught by McAlister, in order to provide feedback for controlling adjustments to the characteristics of liquid discharge through the nozzle. Since McAlister teach that the sensor provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations (as cited above), the sensor taught by McAlister would be capable of measuring vibration of a pressure wave generated by the second opening and closing of the cut-off valve when implemented in the apparatus of Lee et al., modified in view of Kim et al. as described above, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. disclose that a timing of the second opening and the second closing is controlled (Paragraph 0103). When modified as described above regarding claim 1, the second controller would be controlling this timing.
Regarding claim 4, as noted above regarding claim 3, the second controller would control the timing of the second opening and the second closing. According to Examiner’s best understanding in accordance with Paragraph 0059 of the specification, this timing would determine the phase difference, thus the combined invention according to claim 1 results in the second controller controlling the phase difference between the first pressure wave and the second pressure wave.
Regarding claims 5-9, Lee et al.-Kim et al.-McAlister in combination disclose a device having a structure capable of creating the conditions described in claims 5-9 (each opening/closing would generate a pressure wave, and any overlapping or phase difference between the waves would be a function of a user defined variable in the control settings, rather than a structural feature, and thus do not present a patentable distinction over the prior art). For example, a delay time could be determined through routine experimentation that results in a particular amplitude as a natural result of constructive or destructive interference, and that delay time could be programmed into the apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al.-Kim et al.-McAlister in combination teach the apparatus of claim 1. Lee et al. further discloses that the apparatus may discharge a treating material other than photoresist (Paragraph 0058), but does not explicitly disclose that the treating material includes at least one of thinner, positive tone development (PTD), negative tone development (NTD), deionized water (DIW).
However, Kim et al. teach that a similar device may be used for coating or cleaning processes (Page 5, lines 12-16), and further teach that the cleaning process includes supplying deionized water to the substrate (Page 2, lines 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include deionized water as the treating material in the combined invention of Lee et al.-Kim et al.-McAlister since Kim et al. teach that the device would be suitable for a cleaning process and that deionized water is a suitable treating material in this process.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (KR 102081707) in view of McAlister. All references to the written description of Seo et al. refer to the attached machine translation into English (KR102081707-MT).
Regarding claim 11, Seo et al. disclose an apparatus for supplying a treating material (Fig. 8), the apparatus comprising:
a nozzle (1100) configured to discharge the treating material onto a substrate (Paragraph 0056);
a flow pipe (1200) configured to channel the treating material to the nozzle (Paragraph 0056);
a single cut-off valve (1300) connected to the flow pipe and configured to control a flow of the treating material by adjusting a flow rate of air (Paragraph 0059);
a first controller (1440) configured to control a closing speed of the single cut-off valve (Paragraph 0062); and
wherein a first pressure wave is generated at a first closing time point of the single cut-off valve, and wherein a second pressure wave having a phase difference with respect to the first pressure wave is generated at a second closing time point of the single cut-off valve (a rapid closing of the cut-off valve would generate a pressure wave, thus the apparatus disclosed by Seo et al. is inherently capable of causing the recited conditions to occur through normal operation via repeated closing of the cut-off valve, especially considering the adjustability of the closing speed via 1440).
Seo et al. are silent as to a sensor disposed at an end portion of the nozzle, as well as a second controller configured to control an opening time point of the cut-off valve. McAlister teaches an apparatus (injector 110) having a nozzle (118), a flow pipe (123), and a cut-off valve (120), with a sensor (127) disposed at an end portion of the nozzle (Fig. 1) and a controller (126) configured to control an opening time point of the cut-off valve (controller is configured to rapidly and precisely open the valve; Paragraph 0019). McAlister teaches that the sensor provides feedback to a controller (126) that enables adjustments to create desired characteristics of liquid discharge through the nozzle (e.g., 127 provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations and timing; Paragraph 0020). Examiner notes that McAlister is directed to an apparatus for discharging fuel into a combustion chamber rather than discharging a treating material onto a substrate, but the teaching cited herein is pertinent to the instant application as a means of precisely controlling liquid discharge through a nozzle and associated flow path and valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of Seo et al. with a sensor communicating with a second controller, as taught by McAlister, in order to provide adjustability to the characteristics of liquid discharge through the nozzle. Since McAlister teach that the sensor provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations (as cited above), the sensor taught by McAlister would be capable of measuring vibration of a pressure wave generated by an opening and closing of the cut-off valve when implemented in the apparatus of Seo et al., thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Seo et al.-McAlister in combination disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second controller is capable of detecting vibrations in the liquid in the flow path and controlling the timing of the opening and closing of the valve. Thus, the apparatus meets the limitations “wherein the phase difference is generated by a time difference between the first closing time point and the opening time point of the single cut-off valve, and wherein the second controller is configured to control the opening time point by controlling the phase difference.”
Regarding claim 13, Seo et al.-McAlister in combination disclose the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the sensor is capable of measuring vibration of any pressure wave in the liquid in the flow path, and wherein the second controller is configured to receive data on the vibration of said pressure wave from the sensor and adjust the time difference. Thus, the apparatus meets the limitations “wherein a third pressure wave is formed by a combination of the first and second pressure waves, wherein the sensor is configured to measure vibration of the third pressure wave, and wherein the second controller is configured to control the phase difference by receiving data on the vibration of the third pressure wave from the sensor and adjusting the time difference.”
Regarding claims 14-15, Seo et al.-McAlister in combination disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second controller is configured to adjust characteristics of the vibrations in the liquid in the flow path via opening and closing of the valve. Thus, the second controller would be capable of controlling the phase difference through constructive or destructive interference.
Regarding claim 16, Seo et al. disclose a system for supplying a treating material (Fig. 8), comprising an apparatus including:
a nozzle (1100) configured to discharge the treating material onto a substrate (Paragraph 0056);
a flow pipe (1200) configured to channel the treating material to the nozzle (Paragraph 0056);
a single cut-off valve (1300) connected to the flow pipe and configured to control a discharge of the treating material (Paragraph 0059);
a first controller (1440) configured to control a closing speed of the single cut-off valve (Paragraph 0062); and
wherein a first pressure wave is generated by a first closing of the single cut-off valve, and wherein a second_first pressure wave having a first phase difference with respect to the first pressure wave is generated by a second closing of the single cut-off valve, wherein the first pressure wave and the second_first pressure wave combine to generate a third_first pressure wave (a rapid closing of the cut-off valve would generate a pressure wave, thus the apparatus disclosed by Seo et al. is inherently capable of causing the recited conditions to occur through normal operation via repeated closing of the cut-off valve, especially considering the adjustability of the closing speed via 1440).
Seo et al. are silent as to a sensor disposed at an end portion of the nozzle, as well as a second controller configured to control a closing time point of the cut-off valve. McAlister teaches an apparatus (injector 110) having a nozzle (118), a flow pipe (123), and a cut-off valve (120), with a sensor (127) disposed at an end portion of the nozzle (Fig. 1) and a controller (126) configured to control a closing time point of the cut-off valve (controller is configured to rapidly and precisely open the valve; Paragraph 0019). McAlister teaches that the sensor provides feedback to a controller (126) that enables adjustments to create desired characteristics of liquid discharge through the nozzle (e.g., 127 provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations and timing; Paragraph 0020). Examiner notes that McAlister is directed to an apparatus for discharging fuel into a combustion chamber rather than discharging a treating material onto a substrate, but the teaching cited herein is pertinent to the instant application as a means of precisely controlling liquid discharge through a nozzle and associated flow path and valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of Seo et al. with a sensor communicating with a second controller, as taught by McAlister, in order to provide adjustability to the characteristics of liquid discharge through the nozzle. Since McAlister teach that the sensor provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations (as cited above), thus the sensor taught by McAlister would be capable of measuring vibration of any pressure wave in the liquid in the flow path and providing data on the vibration of said pressure wave to the second controller, which would be capable of generating additional pressure waves since it controls the closing time point of the cut-off valve. Thus, the apparatus meets the limitations “wherein the sensor measures vibration of the third_first pressure wave generated by the second closing of the single cut-off valve, wherein the second controller is configured to generate a second_second pressure wave having a second phase difference from a phase of the first pressure wave by receiving data on vibration of the third_first pressure wave from the sensor, and wherein the first pressure wave and the second_second pressure wave combine to generate a third_third pressure wave.
Regarding claims 17-19, Seo et al.-McAlister in combination disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the sensor is capable of measuring vibration of any pressure wave in the liquid in the flow path, and wherein the second controller is configured to receive data on the vibration of said pressure wave from the sensor and generate additional pressure waves by adjusting a time difference and/or modifying the phase of the waves. Thus, the apparatus meets the limitations “wherein the first phase difference is generated by a time difference between the closing time point and an opening time point of the single cut-off valve”; “wherein the second controller is configured to generate the second_second pressure wave having the second phase difference by receiving data on vibration of the third_first pressure wave from the sensor and adjusting the time difference”; and “wherein the second controller is configured to receive data on vibration of the third_first pressure wave and control the first pressure wave and the second_first pressure wave to constructively interfere or destructively interfere with each other.”
Regarding claim 20, Seo et al-McAlister in combination disclose the system of claim 16, wherein the second controller controls a phase difference between the first pressure wave and the second pressure wave (since the second controller taught by McAlister controls the timing of the opening and closing of the valve, and this timing would determine the phase difference).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Lee fails to disclose a single cut-off valve” (Remarks, Page 10) and that “McAlister merely discloses a sensor 127 to measure a pressure and a temperature, but not vibration of a pressure wave” (Remarks, Page 11).
With respect to the Lee reference, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As cited in the above rejections (and discussed during the interview of 1/16/2026 as noted by Applicant), Lee et al. describes the relevant structure as a single valve. Applicant has not provided any indication of how the valve disclosed by Lee et al. is insufficient to meet the claim language, other than referring to the structure as “dual valves” (Remarks, last line of Page 10).
In response to applicant's argument that McAlister does not disclose a sensor to measure vibration of a pressure wave, Examiner notes that Applicant has mischaracterized the sensor as only measuring “a pressure and a temperature”, despite the passage cited on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks demonstrating that McAlister contemplates a variety of sensor configurations. Regardless, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, as described in the above rejections of claims 1, 11, and 16, McAlister teaches a sensor that provides feedback enabling adjustment of frequency of acoustical vibrations. This feedback would inherently include information related to the vibrations that are being adjusted. The specification of the instant application only describes the sensor as being used “to measure vibration or pressure of a pressure wave” (Paragraph 0050) and to provide “data about the vibration of the pressure wave” (Paragraph 0051), which may include amplitude or frequency (Paragraph 0079). Thus, “measuring vibration of a pressure wave” is not defined to include any particular structure or function that is not present in the sensor taught by McAlister. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the sensor taught by McAlister is capable of measuring vibration of a pressure wave as claimed, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the claimed sensor from the sensor of McAlister, the claim language must further delineate its structure or claim functionality that the sensor of McAlister is incapable of performing.
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights