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 § 102
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plavidal et al. (US 11,710,647). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Plavidal as teaching:
a drying apparatus (see title and abstract) comprising:
a housing 100 comprising a drying chamber 120;
a supporting assembly 216 disposed in the drying chamber and having a cavity, wherein the cavity comprises a middle part and an edge part surrounding the middle part (figures 1, 2);
a pressure-reducing assembly 130 comprising an extraction pipe communicated with the cavity (column 5 lines 36-53); and
a pressure-regulating assembly 132 comprising a gas-guiding pipe communicated with the edge part, wherein the pressure-reducing assembly extracts a first gas from the cavity and the gas-guiding pipe is configured to supply a second gas into the edge part of the cavity (column 5 line 54 through column 6 line 2 such that pressure reducing assembly, or expansion chamber 130, extracts a first gas in a chamber, or pipe 120, to supply a gas into an edge part of a cavity or created a vacuum from chamber to chamber which also function structurally as the claimed pipe, also see column 5 lines 36-54 and figures 1, 2). Plavidal also discloses the claims 5 and 17 feature of a second fixing hole 125, the claims 6 and 18 fixed pipe and opening edge communication (figure 1), the claim 9 feature of a monitoring assembly configured to monitor a pressure in the middle part of the cavity and a pressure in the edge part of the cavity (column 3 lines 16-30), the claim 10 feature wherein the pressure-reducing assembly further comprises a extraction unit communicated with the extraction pipe and disposed outside the housing (column 5 liens 22-23), the claim 11 feature wherein the pressure-regulating assembly further comprises a gas-supplying unit communicated with the gas-guiding pipe and disposed outside the housing (figures 1, 2), and the claim 12 feature of a drying method comprising: placing a substrate 212 (wherein the disclosed component is the same as the claimed substrate because the abstract and detailed description teaches a substrate processing equipment which implies a substrate is a component) to be dried in the cavity, wherein a middle part of the substrate to be dried is disposed in the middle part of the cavity, and an edge part of the substrate to be dried is disposed in the edge part of the cavity; extracting the first gas from the cavity; and injecting the second gas into the edge part of the cavity through the gas-guiding pipe (column 7 lines 11-42), the claim 16 non-overlapping range (figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-8, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plavidal in view of Kamikawa et al. (US 7,637,029). Plavidal discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claims 2 and 13 inert nitrogen, argon, or helium gas and claims 3, 4, 7, 15, and 19 temperature control. Kamikawa, another drying apparatus, discloses those features at column 7 lines 27-51 (inert gas) and column 10 lines 22-48 (temperature control) respectively. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Plavidal with the teachings of Kamikawa for the purpose of provide a stable and temperate drying environment regarding substrate purity. Furthermore, Plavidal in view of Kamikawa teach the invention as claimed, except for the claimed lift pins (claim 8), or gas concentration range (claim 13), non-overlapping range (claim 16). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features, since the teachings of Plavidal in view of Kamikawa would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability. Specifically the claim 8 lift pins are an obvious matter of design choice to use wall supports because the Plavidal disclosed wall supports 220, are the same as the claimed lift pins in structure and function, also Plavidal discloses the claim 14 gas concentration range as column 3 lines 53-54 since the disclosed “gasses suitable for performing” implicitly teaches that a gas concentration range must be suitable for the claimed purpose, and the claim 16 non-overlapping range is shown in figures 1, and 2. Finally it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite the claim 20 feature of a greater concentration because as Plavidal in view of Kamikawa teach, a greater concentration at the gas injection site will be greater than an middle part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Plavidal anticipation
Applicant argues the claimed “pressure regulating assembly” is not disclosed by Plavidal, but as rejected, vacuum pump 132 is a pressure regulating assembly since it regulates pressure by lowering and performing all the claimed features of claim 1. Please see the rejection above beginning at column 5 line 35, which teach all the features claimed and argued.
In response to the three functional and structural arguments, Plavidal meets all the structure and function, as rejected above and disclosed in that reference. The vacuum structure and function meet the claimed pressure regulating assembly because a pressure change regulates pressure in that assembly. Applicants are arguing a narrow claim interpretation, such that examiner must give the claims a broad reasonable interpretation, in light of the accompanying specification, as discussed above and Plavidal meets that interpretation for claim construction.
The anticipation of Plavidal rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth above and responded to arguments here.
Plavidal in view of Kamikawa obviousness
Since the anticipation by Plavidal rejection is maintained, so is the Plavidal in view of Kamikawa rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 15-20, those claims recite a broader claim recitation, such that the nitrogen disclosed in the prior art meets the inert gas claimed. As far as the argued greater concentration feature, this feature is inherent to the teachings of the prior art because inert gas flowing into a structure will change the concentration of a middle part since gas exchange will change the gas concentration, as claimed and argued.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 7, 15, 19, the prior art teaches temperature control as claimed and argued because the disclosed fluid heating and vaporization, by definition and as cited will change temperature as rejected. In fact as cited in the teaching of Kamikawa, the temperature range is disclosed.
Regarding the claim 8 lift pins argument, applicant is giving a more narrow meaning to that claim feature, which are recited in the claim, such that feature can be construed to be patentable over the prior art, as rejected. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., upward or retracting, needle-like/columnar structure, or function to adjust position) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the gas flow argument of claim 13 (examiner assumes that the argued claim 14 is intended for claim 13, since claim 14 has been cancelled), applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of that feature as being necessary for patentability as rejected above. 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. The same features of claims 4, 16, 20 fall under the same design choice as current claim 13 and examiner reasonably and broadly construes those claims, in light of the accompanying specification, since applicant has not claimed or specified why those claim features should be patentable over the prior art as rejected.
The obviousness rejection of Plavidal in view of Kamikawa is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights