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 Status
Claims 20-36 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure recites “U.S. Utility Application No. 17/485,698 filed on September 27, 2021” ([0001]). However, the U.S. Application no. 17/485,698, filed on September 27, 2021 is now U.S. patent 11,868,057, issued on January 9, 2024. The applicant is reminded to update the continuity data of their invention. Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, and 22-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 should recite “the plurality of discharge ports”, instead of “the discharge ports” in lines 14 and 23. In addition, claim 20 should recite “the plurality of discharge ports”, instead of “the discharge port” in line 20.
Claim 22 should recite “the plurality of discharge ports”, instead of “the discharge port” in lines 2 and 3.
Claim 23 should recite “the plurality of discharge ports”, instead of “the discharge port” in line 4.
Claim 24 should recite “the plurality of discharge ports”, instead of “the discharge port” in lines 3 and 4.
Claim 25 should recite “the plurality of discharge ports”, instead of “the discharge port” in lines 3 and 4.
Claim 26 should recite “the plurality of buffers”, instead of “the buffers” in line 6.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 28, 32 and 33 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.
Claim 28 is unclear because it recites “the partition walls” (plural) in lines 4 and 5. Claim 28 depends from claim 26 which recites “a partition wall” (singular). It appears that the intended meaning maybe “when a number of the buffers is three, penetration direction of the communication hole provided in the partition wall and a communication hole provided in another partition wall are not aligned on a same straight line”, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, the terms "high" and “low” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms "high" and “low” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms "high" and “low” are relative adjectives, without quantification or a clear basis the term is vague and renders the meets and bounds of the claim to be unclear.
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 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 20, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,180,431 to Sugimoto et al. (hereinafter “Sugimoto”) in view of US 2014/0261163 to Kishita et al. (hereinafter “Kishita”).
Regarding claim 20, Sugimoto teaches a cleaning method for cleaning a treatment apparatus for applying a coating solution (e.g., photoresist) onto a substrate, the solution treatment apparatus comprising a holder configured to hold and rotate the substrate (see figure 3, column 2, lines 63-67, and column 6, lines 15-22), a coating solution supplier configured to supply the coating solution to the substrate held on the holder (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 19-20), and an inner cup configured to surround the holder from a lateral side and having a peripheral edge side upper surface inclining down outward in a radial direction from an apex part located below a peripheral edge side of the substrate held on the holder (see figures 3 and 4, and column 5, lines 24-45), the solution treatment apparatus comprising a plurality of discharge ports (openings) formed along a circumferential direction at the apex part (see figures 3 and 4, and column 38-45), a storage chamber provided in a circular shape along the circumferential direction inside the inner cup, communicating with each of the discharge ports, and configured to store the cleaning solution (see figures 3 and 4, and column 38-41), and an introduction hole connected to the storage chamber and configured to introduce the cleaning solution to the storage chamber (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 32-35), the cleaning method comprising the steps of introducing the cleaning solution to the storage chamber via the introduction hole (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 32-35), and discharging the cleaning solution from the plurality of discharge ports and making the cleaning solution flow down along the peripheral edge side upper surface of the inner cup (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 32-37), thereby cleaning away the coating solution adhering to the peripheral edge side upper surface (column 6, lines 48-50).
Sugimoto does not teach that the step of discharging the cleaning solution from the plurality of discharge ports outward in the radial direction and obliquely upward.
Kishita teaches a method for cleaning the cup of a substrate processing apparatus with a plurality of nozzles, wherein each cleaning nozzle includes a nozzle part having a discharge port at its tip end, the nozzle part configured so that the discharging direction of the cleaning liquid points obliquely upward and outward in the radial direction of the cup structure [0007, and 0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sugimoto wherein the cleaning solution is discharged from the plurality of discharge ports outward in the radial direction and obliquely upward, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sugimoto teaches that the discharge ports (openings) can be angled such that the cleaning liquid is directed substantially horizontally out of the openings of the cup member and substantially horizontally out of the openings of the slanted member so as to cover the inner circumferential surface and the slanted surface with the cleaning agent (column 3, lines 39-46 of Sugimoto), and Kishita teaches that it is effective to clean the cup of a substrate processing apparatus with a plurality of nozzles, each cleaning nozzle including a nozzle part having a discharge port at its tip end, wherein the nozzle part is configured so that the discharging direction of the cleaning liquid points obliquely upward and outward in the radial direction of the cup structure ([0007, and 0040] of Kishita).
Regarding claim 22, Sugimoto/Kishita further teaches that the cleaning solution is discharged from the plurality of discharge ports in a direction having an angle with respect to a radial direction passing through the plurality of discharge ports in plan view (column 3, lines 39-46 of Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 24, Sugimoto/Kishita does not teach that an obliquely upward discharge angle of the cleaning solution from the plurality of discharge port is different depending on a distance from the plurality of discharge ports to the introduction hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sugimoto/Kishita wherein an obliquely upward discharge angle of the cleaning solution from the plurality of discharge port is different depending on a distance from the plurality of discharge ports to the introduction hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of cleaning different areas of the inner cup of the substrate treatment apparatus.
Regarding claim 25, Sugimoto/Kishita does not teach that a thickness of a flow path constituting the plurality of discharge ports is different depending on a distance from the plurality of discharge port to the introduction hole.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sugimoto/Kishita wherein a thickness of a flow path constituting the plurality of discharge ports is different depending on a distance from the plurality of discharge ports to the introduction hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, scince it is obvious to adjust the dimensions of components, due to various design criteria and manufacturing expense thereof. Consult MPEP 2144.04, IV.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,180,431 to Sugimoto et al. (hereinafter “Sugimoto”) in view of US 2014/0261163 to Kishita et al. (hereinafter “Kishita”), and in further view of US 6432199 to Takekuma (hereinafter “Takekuma”).
Regarding claim 21, Sugimoto/Kishita does not teach that in each of the plurality of discharge ports, a flow path is thinner at a tip end than at a base end side.
Takekuma teaches a method for cleaning the inner cup of a substrate processing apparatus with a plurality of spray nozzles comprising (column 13, lines 28-31, and figure 12, #90). Takekuma further teaches that in each of the plurality of nozzles, a flow path is thinner at a tip end than at a base end side (see figure 12, #90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sugimoto/Kishita wherein in each of the plurality of discharge ports, a flow path is thinner at a tip end than at a base end side, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Takekuma teaches that it is effective to clean an inner cup of a substrate processing apparatus with a plurality of spray nozzles, wherein a flow path of the plurality of spray nozzles is thinner at a tip end than at a base end side (column 13, lines 28-31, and figure 12, #90 of Takekuma).
Claims 23 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,180,431 to Sugimoto et al. (hereinafter “Sugimoto”) in view of US 2014/0261163 to Kishita et al. (hereinafter “Kishita”), and in further view of US 2008/0280054 to Ogata et al. (hereinafter “Ogata”).
Regarding claim 23, Sugimoto/Kishita does not teach that the solution treatment apparatus further comprises a shielding plate configured to prevent diffusion of the cleaning solution released in a droplet form from the plurality of discharge ports that is provided above the plurality of discharge ports.
Ogata teaches a processing method and a coating film forming apparatus comprising a cleaning nozzle (figure 4A, #21) comprising a shielding plate (figure 4A, #41, projection piece) configured to prevent diffusion of the cleaning solution released in a droplet form from a discharge port, wherein the shielding plate (figure 4A, #41, projection piece) is provided above the discharge port (see figure 4A, and [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sugimoto/Kishita wherein the solution treatment apparatus further comprises a shielding plate configured to prevent diffusion of the cleaning solution released in a droplet form from the plurality of discharge ports, wherein the shielding plate is provided above the plurality of discharge ports, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ogata teaches that it is effective to include a shielding plate (figure 4A, #41, projection piece) in a cleaning nozzle to prevent diffusion of the cleaning solution released in a droplet form from a discharge port, wherein the shielding plate (figure 4A, #41, projection piece) is provided above the discharge port (see figure 4A, and [0066] of Ogata).
Regarding claim 30, Sugimoto/Kishita does not teach that the cleaning also introduces an inert gas into the storage chamber via the introduction hole.
Ogata teaches a cleaning method comprising the step of introducing an inert gas into a cleaning liquid tank via an introduction hole so that the cleaning liquid is pushed out from the cleaning liquid tank ([0068], and figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Sugimoto/Kishita with the step of introducing an inert gas into the storage chamber via the introduction hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ogata teaches that it is effective to introduce an inert gas such as nitrogen gas into a cleaning liquid tank via an introduction hole so that the cleaning liquid is pushed out from the cleaning liquid tank ([0068], and figure 2 of Ogata).
Regarding claim 31, Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata does not teach that a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and that a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant.
However, it is noted that there are only two possibilities: a) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and b) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, b) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are varied, c) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied, and d) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata does not teach that a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and that a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is alternately switched between a high flow rate and a low flow rate.
However, it is noted that there are only two possibilities: a) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and b) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, b) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), c) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), and d) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied (alternately switched between a high flow rate and a low flow rate), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata does not teach that a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and that a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is alternately switched between a high flow rate and a low flow rate.
However, it is noted that there are only two possibilities: a) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and b) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, b) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), c) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), and d) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a high flow rate and a low flow rate), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 34, Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata does not teach that a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and that a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant.
However, it is noted that there are only two possibilities: a) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and b) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, b) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), c) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), and d) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied (e.g., alternately switched between a first or high flow rate and a second or low flow rate), and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35, Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata does not teach that a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and that a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied.
However, it is noted that there are only two possibilities: a) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and b) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, b) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are varied, c) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied, and d) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied, and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 36, Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata does not teach that a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and that a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied.
However, it is noted that there are only two possibilities: a) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are performed at a same time, and b) a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply of the inert gas to the storage chamber are alternately performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it is noted that there are only four possibilities: a) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are constant, b) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber are varied, c) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied, and d) a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is varied, and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is constant, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Sugimoto/Kishita/Ogata method wherein a supply flow rate of the cleaning solution to the storage chamber is constant and a supply flow rate of the inert gas to the storage chamber is varied, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art references are: US 5,180,431 to Sugimoto et al., which teaches a cleaning method for cleaning a treatment apparatus for applying a coating solution onto a substrate, the solution treatment apparatus comprising a holder configured to hold and rotate the substrate (see figure 3, column 2, lines 63-67, and column 6, lines 15-22), a coating solution supplier configured to supply the coating solution to the substrate held on the holder (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 19-20), and an inner cup configured to surround the holder from a lateral side and having a peripheral edge side upper surface inclining down outward in a radial direction from an apex part located below a peripheral edge side of the substrate held on the holder (see figures 3 and 4, and column 5, lines 24-45), the solution treatment apparatus comprising a plurality of discharge ports (openings) formed along a circumferential direction at the apex part (see figures 3 and 4, and column 38-45), a storage chamber provided in a circular shape along the circumferential direction inside the inner cup, communicating with each of the discharge ports, and configured to store the cleaning solution (see figures 3 and 4, and column 38-41), and an introduction hole connected to the storage chamber and configured to introduce the cleaning solution to the storage chamber (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 32-35), the cleaning method comprising the steps of introducing the cleaning solution to the storage chamber via the introduction hole (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 32-35), and discharging the cleaning solution from the plurality of discharge ports and making the cleaning solution flow down along the peripheral edge side upper surface of the inner cup (see figure 3, and column 6, lines 32-37), thereby cleaning away the coating solution adhering to the peripheral edge side upper surface (column 6, lines 48-50), and US 2014/0261163 to Kishita et al., which teaches a method for cleaning the cup of a substrate processing apparatus with a plurality of nozzles, wherein each cleaning nozzle includes a nozzle part having a discharge port at its tip end, the nozzle part configured so that the discharging direction of the cleaning liquid points obliquely upward and outward in the radial direction of the cup structure ([0007, and 0040] of Kishita).
The prior art references of record, taking alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the storage chamber is divided into a plurality of buffers in a circular shape along the circumferential direction by a partition wall which partition an inside of the storage chamber into a plurality of regions along a flow of fluid, and the partition wall is provided with a communication hole which allows the buffers separated by the partition wall to communicate with each other, in combination with the other process steps as instantly claimed.
Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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 at 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714