Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/644,211

SUBSTRATE TREATMENT APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
WHITESELL, STEVEN H
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
CONTEMPORARY AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
781 granted / 954 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1001
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 954 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Objections Applicant is advised that should claims 13 and 18 be found allowable, respective claims 20 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. [CN 102323719] in view of Choi et al. [US 2010/0055401] and Kitamoto et al. [US 2010/0269366]. For claim 1, Lu teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see Figs. 1, 7, and 8), the apparatus comprising: a coater (802, see [0039]) to coat a substrate (substrate on wheel, 807), which is conveyed at a first speed in a feeding direction (speed of substrate along path from roll 801 to roll 819), with a material (coating material); a dryer (816, see [0040]) to receive the substrate, which is coated by the coater, at the first speed and dry the material; an exposer (808 and 824) to receive the substrate at the first speed and continuously convey a mask (808) at the first speed in the feeding direction, the mask being used for regional shading during exposure of the material by exposer (patterned exposure, see [0039] and Fig. 5 and 6), so that the material is subjected to continuous and regional exposure at the first speed by the exposer (see [0039]); and an etcher (815) configured to receive the substrate, which is exposed by the exposer, at the first speed and etch the material and a portion of the substrate in an unexposed region of the substrate (see [0036]-[0038], and negative resist, see [0050]). Lu fails to teach a dryer is positioned between the coater and the exposer in the feeding direction in order to provide for the exposer configured to receive the substrate, which is dried by the dryer. Choi teaches a dryer is positioned between the coater and the exposer in the feeding direction in order to provide for the exposer configured to receive the substrate, which is dried by the dryer (drying and pre-baking at station 2 before the exposer 3, see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drying station and exposer arrangement as taught by Choi in the apparatus arrangement as taught by Lu in order to harden the coating material prior to exposure to ensure accurate exposure of the resist. Lu fails to teach a dryer includes a plurality of heating tubes and a plurality of air knives arranged at intervals on two sides of the substrate in the feeding direction the plurality of heating tubes and the plurality of air knives are interleaved such that pairs of air knives alternate with pairs of heating tubes along the feeding direction. Kitamoto teaches a dryer (a drying device that follows coating, see Figs. 1A and 1B and [0056]) includes a plurality of heating tubes (32) and a plurality of air knives (33) arranged at intervals on two sides of the substrate in the feeding direction the plurality of heating tubes and the plurality of air knives are interleaved such that pairs of air knives alternate with pairs of heating tubes along the feeding direction (see the arrangement group 31 shown in Figs. 1A and 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dryer configuration as taught by Kitamoto in the dryer as taught by Lu or Choi in order to sufficiently dry the substrate without using a large amount of energy. For claim 2, Lu teaches a feeder (wind up roll wheel 819, see [0040]) to convey the substrate at the first speed in the feeding direction. For claim 3, Lu teaches a cleaner (etcher can further comprise a cleaning for removing the residual material mixture, see [0036]) configured to receive the substrate, which is etched of the etcher, at the first speed and clean the substrate. For claim 4, Lu teaches a first feeder to allow the feeding direction in the coater to be in a vertical direction (vertical component formed by feed direction of the support rollers 803 and 804, see Fig. 8) such that dust can fall off the substrate under gravity (dust would fall from the bottom of the substrate). For claims 5 and 6, Lu fails to teach the coater performs coating by a gravure coating process, and that the substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and the coater coats the first surface and the second surface with the material. Choi teaches the coater performs coating by a gravure coating process (see [0071]), and that the substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and the coater coats the first surface and the second surface with the material (coating and exposing both sides, see Fig. 5, [0062]-[0065], and example 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the opposite side coating by gravure as taught by Choi in the coating as taught by Lu, because the double sided gravure allows for providing efficient high speed coating on both sides of the substrate simultaneously in order to provide for two side exposure of the exposure, increasing throughput. For claim 8, Lu teaches the exposer comprises a mask conveyer (820-823) configured to continuously convey the mask at the first speed in the feeding direction. For claim 9, Lu teaches the mask is an endless mask (flexible mask, see [0039]), and the mask conveyer rotates the endless mask at the first speed. For claims 13, 20, and 21, in the combination, Lu teaches the coater includes a first feeder to guide the feeding direction in the coater to be a vertical direction (vertical component formed by feed direction of the support rollers 803 and 804 at coater 802, see Fig. 8) and the exposer to receive the substrate at the first speed (see Fig. 8) and continuously convey the mask at the first speed in the feeding direction in the exposer along the horizontal direction (by a flexible mask, see Fig. 8 and [0039]); Kitamoto teaches the dryer guides the feeding direction in the dryer to be a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction (see Fig. 1B and 5 and [0066], air from below on floor part 24 floats the substrate W); and Choi teaches the exposer to receive the substrate, which is dried by the dryer, at the first speed (see Fig. 7). For claim 16, in the combination, Kitamoto teaches the plurality of heating tubes and the plurality of air knives are interleaved within the dryer such that at least one pair of air knives among the plurality of air knives on the two sides of the substrate is positioned between two pairs of heating tubes among the plurality of heating tubes on the two sides of the substrate (see the interleaved positional relationship of heaters 32 and nozzles 33 shown in Fig. 1B). For claim 17, in the combination, Kitamoto teaches at least one pair of heating tubes among the plurality of heating tubes on the two sides of the substrate is positioned between two pairs of air knives among the plurality of air knives on the two sides of the substrate (see the interleaved positional relationship of heaters 32 and nozzles 33 shown in Fig. 1B). For claims 18 and 19, in the combination, Kitamoto teaches the plurality of heating tubes includes at least three pairs of heating tubes, the plurality of air knives includes at least three pairs of air knives, and the at least three pairs of heating tubes are interleaved with the at least three pairs of air knives (at least three groups 31 of heaters 32 and nozzles 33 shown in Fig. 1B). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Choi and Kitamoto as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dunn et al. [US 6,018,383]. For claim 10, Lu teaches the mask conveyer comprises: a first drive roller rotating at the first speed as a linear velocity, and the plurality of rollers being disposed on the inside of the endless mask to rotate the endless mask (rotation of the roller, directly or indirectly drives the motion of the flexible mask 808 to produce movement through a rotating transfer wheel 820, 821, 822, 823, see [0039]). Lu fails to explicitly teach which of the rollers are a first drive roller and a driven roller. Dunn teaches a first drive roller (roller 32, see Figs. 2 and 7) and a driven roller (30 and 31. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roller arrangement as taught by Dunn in the mask conveying as taught by Lu in order to ensure that substrate and mask move at the same speeds and reduce the likelihood of slippage by multiple drive wheels. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Choi and Kitamoto as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Senge et al. [US 4,859,298]. For claims 11 and 12, Lu fails to teach the etcher comprises: a conductive roller, a first electrode and an etching tank, the conductive roller and the first electrode being disposed in the etching tank, and the etching tank holding an electrolyte solution, wherein the conductive roller and the first electrode have opposite polarities, and the conductive roller comes into contact with the exposed substrate and conveys the substrate to the etching tank at the first speed, and the cleaner comprises: a spray rod and a cleaning tank, the spray rod sprays a cleaning liquid to the etched substrate, and the cleaning tank collects and discharges a waste liquid after cleaning the substrate. Senge teaches the etcher (see Fig. 1) comprises: a conductive roller (18), a first electrode (28) and an etching tank (11), the conductive roller and the first electrode being disposed in the etching tank, and the etching tank holding an electrolyte solution (7), wherein the conductive roller and the first electrode have opposite polarities (anode 25 and cathode 26), and the conductive roller comes into contact with the exposed substrate and conveys the substrate to the etching tank at the first speed (see Fig. 1), and the cleaner (36) comprises: a spray rod (spray bar headers 45) and a cleaning tank (36), the spray rod sprays a cleaning liquid to the etched substrate, and the cleaning tank collects and discharges a waste liquid after cleaning the substrate (water waste falling from substrate inherent to the system, see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the etcher and cleaner arrangements as taught by Senge in the etching and cleaning of a substrate as taught by Lu in order to continuously remove protective coatings of substrates to provide for patterning of the substrate. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Choi and Kitamoto as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Xin et al. [CN 211879508]. For claims 14 and 15, Lu fails to teach the first feeder further comprises: an upper feeder and a lower feeder, wherein the upper feeder is positioned above the lower feeder in the vertical direction, and the substrate is located between the upper feeder and the lower feeder and the coater further comprises: a coating roller located between the upper feeder and the lower feeder in the vertical direction: and the coating roller coats the substrate with the material in a vertical state along the vertical direction. Xin teaches in Fig. 1 the first feeder further comprises: an upper feeder (roller 24) and a lower feeder (guide roller below the upper roller 24 prior to the coater 20), wherein the upper feeder is positioned above the lower feeder in the vertical direction (see Fig. 1), and the substrate is located between the upper feeder and the lower feeder (between the upper and lower feeder along the vertical direction, see Fig. 1); and the coater further comprises: a coating roller (23) located between the upper feeder and the lower feeder in the vertical direction (see Fig. 1); and the coating roller coats the substrate with the material in a vertical state along the vertical direction (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vertical coater as taught by Xin the coater as taught by Lu in order to provide more accurate control over the coating thickness and reduce material waste. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Kitamoto is relied upon to teach salient features of the amended subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizuno [JP 2016/143640] teaches a similar coating apparatus. 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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST). 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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. /Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 27, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 28, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601978
METHOD OF SETTING UP A PROJECTION EXPOSURE SYSTEM, A PROJECTION EXPOSURE METHOD AND A PROJECTION EXPOSURE SYSTEM FOR MICROLITHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585197
MONITORING UNIT AND SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581585
TILT STAGE, EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT GENERATION APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571680
WAVELENGTH MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, NARROWED-LINE LASER APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547086
PROJECTION EXPOSURE APPARATUS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR LITHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 954 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month