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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C (claims 1-3, 5-7 and 11-14) in the reply filed on 22 April 2026 was previously acknowledged. Claims 15-20 were previously withdrawn with traverse.
Claims 4, 8-10 and 15-20 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned replies.
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: claim 1 movement mechanism (i.e. mechanism for moving, wherein mechanism is a generic placeholder similar to “means”) and wherein no specific structure was located in the specification.
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.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
As discussed above, claim 1 “movement mechanism” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of “movement mechanism” in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In order to expedite examination, any feature capable of executing the claimed function(s) has been considered readable thereon. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 1 limitation “movement mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim and claims dependent thereon are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP Pub. No. H05-198555 to Saiso et al.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-2, e.g., Saiso et al. disclose a substrate processing device, comprising: a processing tank (3) including a first region (e.g. region including 1 and 2), a second region (e.g. region containing 23), and a third region (e.g. region containing 22), in which a plurality of substrates (1) are housed in the first region and arranged in a first direction with their faces oriented (i.e. arrayed) in an approximately horizontal direction such that a processing of the substrates using a processing solution is capable of being carrier out, the second region is provide in a vicinity of the first region, and the third region is provided such that the processing solution is capable of moving between the first region and the second region; a moving body (e.g., 23) disposed in the second region of the processing tank and configured to move such that a flow of the processing solution is capable of occuring (note: the capability of flow does not require direct flow or a specific flow path, just that the regions are fluidly connected such that a flow of the processing fluid is capable of occuring); and a movement mechanism (25 and 26) configured to move the moving body.
With respect to claim 2, in Saiso et al., the moving body includes a plate-form body (23) disposed in the processing solution.
With respect to claim 3, the plate-form body extends in the first direction to correspond to an arrangement of the plurality of substrates (see, e.g., Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 11, in Saiso et al., the movement mechanism is capable of causing the moving body to move repeatedly in a predetermined direction (e.g., via rotation).
With respect to claim 12, in Saiso et al., the movement mechanism is provided in an exterior of the processing tank, and is coupled to the moving body through a drive shaft (not numbered)(see, e.g., Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 13, in Saiso et al., the processing device further comprises: an overflow part (4) configured to recover processing solution overflowing from the processing tank; a circulation piping (7 and 7A) configured to return the processing solution recovered in the overflow part to the processing tank; and a circulation pump (8) provided in the circulation piping.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiso et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 11-13 above in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0150600 to Yates.
With respect to claims 5-7, Saise et al. discloses the processing device substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Saise et al. fail to disclose the processing device also including another second region provided along with the first region in a second direction that intersects the first direction in a horizontal direction, sandwiching another third region between the first region and the another second region, another moving body is disposed in the first direction, and another movement mechanism is configured to move another moving body in the second direction.
In Fig. 15, Yates discloses including another second region provided along with the first region in a second direction that intersects the first direction in a horizontal direction, sandwiching another third region between the first region and the another second region, another moving body (420) is disposed in the first direction and the second region (depending on its movement) and moves in the second direction for the purpose of reducing contaminants in the tank. Yates fails to explicitly disclose a movement mechanism for moving the moving body. However, as detailed above, Saiso et al. teach that a motor can be used as a movement mechanism as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense, and logic. Alternatively, an operator could manually initiate and control the movement.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided another second region provided along with the first region in a second direction that intersects the first direction in a horizontal direction, sandwiching another third region between the first region and the another second region, another moving body is disposed in the first direction, and another movement mechanism is configured to move another moving body in the second direction in order to reduce contaminants in the tank as taught by Yates.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Saiso et al., Yates teaches the moving body is a plate-form body further disposed in a third direction that intersects the first direction in a vertical direction, and a face thereof is disposed to oppose the plurality of substrates, when the substrates are in the tank. See, e.g., Fig. 15.
With respect to claim 7, in modified Saiso et al., Yates discloses no partitioning plate is provided between the first region and the another second region.
With respect to claim 14, Saise et al. discloses the processing device substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Saise et al. fails to disclose the processing device comprising a lifter configured to support the substrate, and rise and descend between the first region of the processing tank and a standby position of the substrates above the processing tank.
Yates discloses a processing device comprising a lifter (Fig. 12, 320 and 335) configured to support the substrates, and rise and descend between a first region of a processing tank (340) and a standby position of the substrates above the processing tank for the purpose of moving the substrates into and out of the tank (see, e.g., para. 49).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Saise et al. a lifter configured to support the substrates, and rise and descend between the first region of the processing tank and a standby position of the substrates above the processing tank in order to move the substrates into and out of the tank as taught by Yates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112f interpretation of movement mechanism, Applicant has argued that that the interpretation should not apply because one of ordinary skill in the art would have a definite meaning. Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant has not provided what that definite meaning would be. Additionally, Applicant argues that upon reading the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the feature as having a definite meaning. Again, Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant has not provided what that definite meaning would be. Thus, the interpretation remains appropriate and rejections relating to the same are also still proper. Examiner also notes that the “generic placeholder” is the term “mechanism”. The claim limitation “moving mechanism” as a whole is not the generic placeholder.
Regarding the prior art rejections, 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 are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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 the instant case, although, Applicant has not substantially elaborated on their reasoning, it appears that that they are equating a physical arrangement of the first, second and third regions with the capability of flow therethrough. The claim does not require a particular structural/positional arrangement of first region, the second region and the third region just that a processing solution can move between the same.
Claim 5 does appear to recite a specific structural/physical relative arrangement of the first region and the second region. See above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Paten 6,536,452; USP Pub. 2017/0066021; and USP Pub. 2021/0082728 disclose substrate processing devices with various means and arrangements for affecting propagation of a processing solution in a tank.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights