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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted November 23, 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the locations of the “discharge liquid” and “exhaust gas” labels are inconsistent in Figure 2. On the left side of Figure 2, the discharge passage 57 is labelled “discharge liquid” and the exhaust passage 58 is labelled “exhaust gas”, however on the right side, the labels are reversed. Paragraph 25 of the applicant’s specification states the discharge passage 57 is located radially outside of the exhaust passage 58, and liquid flows into the discharge passage 57 while gas flows into the exhaust passage 58. Accordingly, the left side of Figure 2 matches the specification, while the right side is inconsistent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a substrate holding mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The generic, non-structural term “mechanism” is defined by the function of “holding the substrate” and is not defined by the structure which performs the function. Accordingly, the “substrate holding mechanism” meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, paragraphs 18-19 state the “substrate holding mechanism 31” includes multiple chucks 35, a circular stage 36 and a hollow support shaft 37, which are seen in Figure 2. Accordingly, the “substrate holding mechanism” will be treated as multiple chucks, a stage, and a shaft, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 is directed to an apparatus (a substrate polishing device), however the claim recites method steps in lines 2-4: “the substrate device performs a polishing process on the substrate” and “a substrate drying device that performs a drying process”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite (see MPEP §2173.05(p) II for further clarification).
If the claim was amended to refer to the method steps as functions, such as by stating “wherein the substrate device is configured to polishing the substrate” and “a substrate drying device configured to dry the substrate”, then the claim would be definite.
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 4-6 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 (multiple chucks 10, stage 11A, and hollow shaft 1A), holding a substrate horizontally (see paragraph 53);
a rotating cover (3, 75, 80, see Figure 21), configured to surround the substrate and having a side wall part (3, 75) 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 performs a polishing process on the substrate, and the substrate rotation processing device is a substrate drying device that performs a drying process on the substrate after the polishing process (see paragraph 119).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,773,687 to Wakiyama teaches a substrate processing device comprising a discharge hole (exhaust port) which has a rectangular shape (column 3, lines 29-31). US 6,596,082 to Chuang teaches a substrate processing device comprising discharge holes (306A, 306B) which are circular or polygonal (column 6, lines 32-35). US 2015/0187613 to Wakiyama et al teaches a substrate processing device comprising circular discharge holes and a rotating cover (50c) having a plurality of impellers (571) (see Figures 12 and 13).
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