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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 3/12/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 21 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 21 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach a nozzle head that is able to both treat and clean a substrate by ejecting a treating solution and a cleaning solution at different times onto the substrate: Examiner maintains the position as stated in the office action of 12/16/25 as follows: Kim et al. teaches a spraying unit 890 comprising a nozzle tip member 892, which has an outlet formed at an end thereof, and capable of ejecting a treating solution and a cleaning solution onto the substrate W at different times onto the substrate W (see figure 4, page 7 of the translation). Kim et al. does not explicitly teach that the nozzle tip member provides a treating solution and cleaning solution at different times onto the substrate. However, since all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular manner in which the apparatus is employed and the particular liquids that are used constitute matters of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding applicant’s that there are no teachings in Kim et al. and Goo et al. that Kim et al.’s home port can be modified to hold cleaning liquid that is sucked up by nozzle 892 to clean Kim’s substrate: Examiner maintains the position as stated in the office action of 12/16/25, and further elaborates as follows: Kim et al. teaches in figures 7-8 and pages 8-9 of the translation a substrate cleaning solution providing unit 942, disposed above the first chemical solution supply unit 941, and capable of injecting the cleaning solution for cleaning the substrate that has been treated using the treating solution into the inside of the standby port 900 (the standby port 900 is capable of accommodating cleaning fluid) as well as onto the nozzle tip member 892. Kim et al. does not teach that the nozzle tip member sucks back the cleaning solution in the standby port into the nozzle tip member. Goo et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and that a suck back valve 833 may be associated with a nozzle tip member 831 so as to suction fluids contained on and around the nozzle tip member 831 into the nozzle tip member 831, thereby preventing fluid from dropping from the nozzle tip member 831 during movement of the nozzle tip member 831 (see paragraphs [0072]-[0079], figures 5, 9-12). Since both Kim et al. and Goo et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses with movable fluid delivery 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 nozzle tip member may suck back fluids that are disposed on and around the nozzle tip member, including in the standby port when the nozzle tip member is disposed therein, after cleaning of the nozzle tip member and the stand by port so as to prevent dropping of fluid from the nozzle tip member during movement of the nozzle tip member, as shown to be known and conventional by Goo et al.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Kim et al. teaches away from the nozzle 892 supplying a cleaning liquid because nozzle 464 supplies a cleaning liquid: As discussed above, the nozzle 892 is capable of supplying a cleaning liquid. The teaching that nozzle 464 is capable of supplying a cleaning liquid does not negate the fact that nozzle 892 is capable of supplying a cleaning liquid; the particular choice of fluid supplied being a matter of intended use; and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In response to applicant's argument that combining the teachings of Kim et al. and Goo et al. would result in separate nozzles in separate chambers and use of the suck-back valve only during movement of the nozzle, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, as discussed above, Goo et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and that a suck back valve 833 may be associated with a nozzle tip member 831 so as to suction fluids contained on and around the nozzle tip member 831 into the nozzle tip member 831, thereby preventing fluid from dropping from the nozzle tip member 831 during movement of the nozzle tip member 831 (see paragraphs [0072]-[0079], figures 5, 9-12). Since both Kim et al. and Goo et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses with movable fluid delivery 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 nozzle tip member may suck back fluids that are disposed on and around the nozzle tip member, including in the standby port when the nozzle tip member is disposed therein, after cleaning of the nozzle tip member and the stand by port so as to prevent dropping of fluid from the nozzle tip member during movement of the nozzle tip member, as shown to be known and conventional by Goo et al.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach that a number of repetitions of nozzle tip cleaning by the nozzle tip cleaning unit and standby port cleaning by the standby port cleaning unit is determined based on a number of the nozzle tip members: As discussed above, the modified system by Kim et al. and Goo et al. teaches a system that is capable of nozzle tip cleaning by the nozzle tip cleaning unit and standby port cleaning by the standby port cleaning unit. The number of repetitions of the nozzle tip cleaning and standby port cleaning and the manner in which the number of repetitions is determined is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-9, 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20160054142A) in view of Goo et al. (US20190317408).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a substrate treating apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a substrate support unit 810 capable of supporting a substrate W; (see figure 4, page 6 of the translation); a spraying unit 890 comprising a nozzle tip member 892, which has an outlet formed at an end thereof, and capable of ejecting a treating solution and a cleaning solution onto the substrate W at different times onto the substrate W (see figure 4, page 7 of the translation); a standby port 900that is capable of accommodating the nozzle tip member 892 after completion of the ejection of the treating solution onto the substrate W (see figures 5-6, page 8 of the translation), wherein the substrate treating apparatus is capable of cleaning the nozzle tip member 892 and the inside of the standby port 900 (see figures 7-8 and pages 8-9 of the translation, nozzles 941 and 942 are disposed so as to be capable of directing cleaning fluid towards the inside of the standby port 900 as well as the nozzle tip member 892, and are capable of cleaning both the nozzle tip member 892 and the standby port 900, e.g. the nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of cleaning the standby port 900 before the nozzle tip member 892 is disposed therein, while the nozzle tip member 892 is disposed therein, as well as after the nozzle tip member 892 has been removed from the standby port 900) before the nozzle tip member 892 sucks back a second chemical solution. Kim et al. teaches in figures 7-8 and pages 8-9 of the translation a nozzle tip cleaning unit 941 capable of supplying, into the inside of the standby port 900, a first chemical solution that cleans the nozzle tip member 892, while the nozzle tip member 892 is accommodated within the inside of the standby port 900; a substrate cleaning solution providing unit 942, disposed above the first chemical solution supply unit 941, and capable of injecting the cleaning solution for cleaning the substrate that has been treated using the treating solution into the inside of the standby port 900, and into an area that is above the area sprayed by the nozzle tip cleaning unit 941. Kim et al. does not teach that the nozzle tip member and standby port are cleaned before the nozzle tip member sucks back the cleaning solution in the standby port into the nozzle tip member. Goo et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and that a suck back valve 833 may be associated with a nozzle tip member 831 so as to suction fluids contained on and around the nozzle tip member 831 into the nozzle tip member 831, thereby preventing fluid from dropping from the nozzle tip member 831 during movement of the nozzle tip member 831 (see paragraphs [0072]-[0079], figures 5, 9-12). Since both Kim et al. and Goo et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses with movable fluid delivery 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 nozzle tip member may suck back fluids that are disposed on and around the nozzle tip member, including in the standby port when the nozzle tip member is disposed therein, after cleaning of the nozzle tip member and the stand by port so as to prevent dropping of fluid from the nozzle tip member during movement of the nozzle tip member, as shown to be known and conventional by Goo et al. Kim et al. does not explicitly teach a standby port cleaning unit, positioned above the nozzle tip cleaning unit, and supplying a third chemical solution into the inside of the standby port. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a third chemical solution supply unit may be included so as to provide additional fluid supply and treatment capacity. Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the third chemical solution supply unit may be positioned above the nozzle tip cleaning unit so as to provide additional spray into the space above the area sprayed by the nozzle tip cleaning unit. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts and the rearrangement of parts constitute obvious design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Kim et al. does not explicitly teach that the nozzle tip member provides a treating solution and cleaning solution at different times onto the substrate or the particular sequence of cleaning steps of claims 2-8. Similarly, Kim et al. does not teach that a number of repetitions of nozzle tip cleaning by the nozzle tip cleaning unit and standby port cleaning by the standby port cleaning unit is determined based on a number of the nozzle tip members. However, since all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular manner in which the apparatus is employed, including the number of repetitions of the nozzle tip cleaning and standby port cleaning and the manner in which the number of repetitions is determined and the particular liquids that are used all constitute matters of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 2-9, Kim et al. and Goo et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim et al. teaches that the nozzle tip member 892 and the standby port 900 are capable of being sequentially cleaned (see figures 7-8 and pages 8-9 of the translation, nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of cleaning both the nozzle tip member 892 and the standby port 900, e.g. the nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of cleaning the standby port 900 before the nozzle tip member 892 is disposed therein, while the nozzle tip member 892 is disposed therein, as well as after the removal of the nozzle tip member 892 from the standby port 900, and/or vice versa in sequence – reads on claims 2-4); the cleaning of the nozzle tip member 892 and the cleaning of the standby port 900 is able to be repeated a plurality of times (the nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of cleaning the standby port 900and the nozzle tip member 892 a desired number of times – reads on claims 5 and 6 – e.g. use of statistical data or inspection of the surfaces of the nozzle tip member may be carried by the user, and user may then determine the number of desired cleaning cycles), once the nozzle tip member 892 is cleaned, the nozzle tip member 892 is able to be moved away from the internal space of the standby port 900 (see page 7 of the translation, nozzle moving member 893 is capable of moving the nozzle tip member 892 into and out of the standby port 900), and the inside of the standby port 900 is able to be cleaned after the nozzle tip member 892 is moved away (see figures 7-8, nozzles 941 and 942 are disposed so as to be capable of directing cleaning fluid towards the inside of the standby port 900– reads on claims 7-8), the inside of the standby port 900 is able to be cleaned once before cleaning the nozzle tip member 892, the nozzle tip member 892 is able to be cleaned once again after cleaning the inside of the standby port 900, and the chemical solution may be a thinner (see pages 8-9 of the translation, nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of applying a thinner to the nozzle tip member 892 and the standby port 900– reads on claim 9). Kim et al. does not explicitly teach the particular sequence of cleaning steps of claims 2-8. However, since all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular manner in which the apparatus is employed is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 11-13, Kim et al. and Goo et al. together teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Kim et al. teaches in figures 5, 7-8 and pages 7-9 of the translation that the spraying unit 890 and the chemical solution supply units 941 and 942 are all capable of supplying liquids; as would be, in the modified system including a third chemical solution supply unit, the third chemical solution supply unit. Kim et al. does not explicitly teach that the first chemical solution is for cleaning a surface of the nozzle tip member, the second chemical solution is for cleaning the inside of the standby port or that the treating solution is for forming a photosensitive film on the substrate. However, since all of the structural requirements of the claims are taught by the prior art, the particular liquids that are used with the apparatus is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. teaches a substrate treating apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a substrate support unit 810 supporting a substrate W (see figure 4, page 6 of the translation); a spraying unit 890 including a nozzle tip member 892, which has an outlet formed at an end thereof, and capable of ejecting a cleaning solution and a treating solution at different times onto the substrate W using the nozzle tip member 892 (see figure 4, page 7 of the translation); and a standby port 900 that is capable of accommodating the nozzle tip member 892 after the nozzle tip member 892 has completed the ejection of the treating solution onto the substrate W (see figures 5-6, page 8 of the translation); a nozzle tip cleaning unit 941 capable of supplying a first chemical solution that cleans the nozzle tip member 892 into the inside of the standby port 900 while the nozzle tip member 892 is accommodated within the inside of the standby port 900; a substrate cleaning solution providing unit 942, disposed above the first chemical solution supply unit 941, and capable of injecting the cleaning solution for cleaning the substrate that has been treated using the treating solution into the inside of the standby port 900 (see figures 7-8 and pages 8-9 of the translation, nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of cleaning both the nozzle tip member 892 and the standby port 900, e.g. the nozzles 941 and 942 are capable of cleaning the standby port 900 before the nozzle tip member 892 is disposed therein, while the nozzle tip member 892 is disposed therein, as well as after the nozzle tip member 892 has been removed therefrom, and clean the nozzle tip member 892 after it is disposed in the standby port 900, and/or vice versa). Kim et al. does not teach that the nozzle tip member sucks up the cleaning solution in the inside of the standby port into the nozzle tip member. Goo et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and that a suck back valve 833 may be associated with a nozzle tip member 831 so as to suction fluids contained on and around the nozzle tip member 831 into the nozzle tip member 831, thereby preventing fluid from dropping from the nozzle tip member 831 during movement of the nozzle tip member 831 (see paragraphs [0072]-[0079], figures 5, 9-12). Since both Kim et al. and Goo et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses with movable fluid delivery 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 nozzle tip member may suck back fluids that are disposed on and around the nozzle tip member, including in the standby port when the nozzle tip member is disposed therein, after cleaning of the nozzle tip member and the stand by port so as to prevent dropping of fluid from the nozzle tip member during movement of the nozzle tip member, as shown to be known and conventional by Goo et al. Kim et al. does not explicitly teach that the nozzle tip member ejects a treating solution and a cleaning solution at different times or the particular sequence of cleaning steps. Similarly, Kim et al. does not teach that a number of repetitions of nozzle tip cleaning by the nozzle tip cleaning unit and standby port cleaning by the standby port cleaning unit is determined based on a number of the nozzle tip members. However, since all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular manner in which the apparatus is employed, including the number of repetitions of the nozzle tip cleaning and standby port cleaning and the manner in which the number of repetitions is determined and the particular liquids that are used all constitute matters of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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 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