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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, this has added structure to the “substrate holding mechanism” and therefore the “substrate holding mechanism” is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The “substrate holding mechanism” will be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
Regarding the art rejection under 35 USC 102, the applicant has argued, see page 9, lines 1-6, that Morisawa defines the stage 11B as part of the substrate holding mechanism, which is different than the claimed bottom part, and therefore Morisawa fails to teach the rotating cover having the bottom surface part having the discharge holes. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Morisawa states the stage 11B is part of substrate holding mechanism, this does not limit the prior art to this interpretation. The examiner mapped an alternative interpretation of the prior art to the claims of the application. The applicant’s argument is essentially arguing for an interpretation of the prior art which does not read on the claims, rather than addressing the interpretation used in the previous rejection. Without showing any flaws or deficiencies in the rejection, the argument cannot be persuasive.
Further, in light of the amendment to claim 1 circumventing the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as noted above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the structure of the “substrate holding mechanism” is “at least one chuck”. The amendment to claim 1 contradicts the applicant’s argument regarding how the prior art should be mapped to the claim since the claim does not require the “substrate holding mechanism” to have a stage.
When the “substrate holding mechanism” was interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), at least one chuck (10 of Morisawa) was included in the interpretation. Thus, the amendment does not overcome the prior art since the prior art already teaches “at least one chuck” which holds the substrate. Therefore, the art rejections are maintained.
The corrections to the claims are noted with appreciation. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 22, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0101181 to Morisawa.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Morisawa teaches:
A substrate rotation processing device, comprising:
a substrate holding mechanism, holding a substrate horizontally (see paragraph 53), wherein the substrate holding mechanism includes at least one chuck (chucks 10);
a rotating cover (3, 11B, 75, 80, see Figure 21), configured to surround the substrate and having a side wall part (3, 75, 80) surrounding the substrate and a bottom surface part (11B) in an inner side of the side wall part (see paragraph 53);
a rotation mechanism (motor 2), rotating the substrate held by the substrate holding mechanism and the rotating cover (see paragraph 55); and
a gas supply nozzle (18), supplying gas with respect to a back surface (bottom of substrate W) of the substrate held by the substrate holding mechanism through the bottom surface part of the rotating cover (see paragraph 57),
wherein a plurality of discharge holes (25, 26, and space between support arms 80 leading to gas outlet 51a and liquid outlet 51b, see Figures 21 and 23A and paragraphs 114 and 117) for discharging gas supplied from the gas supply nozzle are formed on the bottom surface part of the rotating cover, and the discharge holes have inclined surfaces (see Figure 21) formed inclined with respect to a rotating surface of the rotating cover (see paragraphs 108-109 and Figures 21, 22A, and 23A-B).
In Reference to Claim 4#
Morisawa teaches:
The substrate rotation processing device according to claim 1, wherein the bottom surface part of the rotating cover is provided with a plurality of impellers (80) formed inclined with respect to the rotating surface of the rotating cover, and the discharge holes are formed between two adjacent impellers (see paragraph 114 and Figures 21, 22, 23A, 23B).
In Reference to Claim 5#
Morisawa teaches:
The substrate rotation processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a cleaning liquid supply nozzle (17) that supplies cleaning liquid to the substrate (see paragraph 57).
In Reference to Claim 6#
Morisawa teaches:
A substrate polishing device (not numbered, see Figure 25), comprising the substrate rotation processing device according to claim 1, wherein the substrate polishing device is configured to polish the substrate, and the substrate rotation processing device is a substrate drying device configured to dry the substrate after the substrate is polished by the substrate polishing device (see paragraph 119).
In Reference to Claim 7#
Morisawa teaches:
The substrate rotation processing device according to claim 1, wherein each of the discharge holes is inclined relatively to a rotating axis of the rotating cover (see Figure 21).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0101181 to Morisawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,715,943 to Nagamine.
In Reference to Claim 2
Morisawa teaches:
The substrate rotation processing device according to claim 1, comprising the discharge holes.
Morisawa fails to teach:
The discharge holes are circular when the rotating cover is viewed from above.
Nagamine teaches:
A substrate processing device (18) comprising a cover (75) and a discharge hole (80), wherein the discharge hole is circular when the cover is viewed from above (see column 13, lines 60-67 and Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate rotation processing device of Morisawa by shaping the discharge hole as circular when viewed from above as taught by Nagamine which is a known technique for a known device which yields predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is a circular shaped discharge hole which smoothly guides the working fluid out of the device.
In Reference to Claim 3
Morisawa teaches:
The substrate rotation processing device according to claim 1, comprising the discharge holes.
Morisawa fails to teach:
The discharge holes are rectangular when the rotating cover is viewed from above.
Nagamine teaches:
A substrate rotation processing device (18) comprising a cover (75) and a discharge hole (80), wherein the discharge hole is rectangular when the cover is viewed from above (see column 13, lines 60-67 and Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate rotation processing device of Morisawa by shaping the discharge hole to be rectangular when viewed from above as taught by Nagamine for the purpose of more easily forming the discharge hole (column 13, lines 63-67 of Nagamine).
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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights