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 .
Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 09/25/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claim 9 is withdrawn.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitations are:
“substrate treating unit configured to supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate to perform water-repellent treatment to the substrate” in claim 1.
“decomposition solution mixing mechanism configured to mix a decomposition solution for decomposing the water repellent to a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment” in claims 1-3 & 5-8.
“discharging unit configured to discharge a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus” in claim 1.
“mixing unit” in claims 2 & 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“substrate treating unit . . .” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a nozzle (see, e.g., specification at ¶¶ 0034-35, 0040, Figs. 1 & 4-12), and equivalents thereof.
“decomposition solution mixing mechanism . . .” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a pipe (see, e.g., specification at ¶¶ 0061-62, 0065-66, 0068, 0071-72, 0074-75, Figs. 1 & 4-12), and equivalents thereof.
“discharging unit . . .” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a pipe (see, e.g., specification at ¶¶ 0044-45, 0143, Figs. 1 & 4-12), and equivalents thereof.
“mixing unit” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a junction (see, e.g., specification at ¶¶ 0026, 0044, 0058, 0067, Figs. 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8—dependent on Claims 1 and 2—recites that the mixing is performed at two different locations via different structures:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, passing through the mixing unit, via the mixing unit”;
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid stored in the chamber via a supply port provided in the chamber.”
Additionally, the specification discloses two separate and distinct structures for performing mixing at the two different locations:
Decomposition solution mixing unit 92 mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, passing through the mixing unit 51, via the mixing unit 51 (see Fig. 11; see also Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0044, 0047).
Decomposition solution mixing unit 141 mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid stored in the chamber 3 via a supply port 3E provided in the chamber (see Fig. 11, ¶ 0132).
Because Claim 8 requires the decomposition solution mixing mechanism to perform mixing at two different locations via two different structures—wherein the specification discloses those two structures to be separate and distinct from each other—the metes and bounds of the recited “decomposition solution mixing mechanism” are unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIMURA et al. (US Patent 5711809).
Regarding Claim 1, KIMURA teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate (see Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 55 to col. 6 line 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a substrate treating unit configured to supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate to perform water-repellent treatment to the substrate” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a nozzle (as explained above). KIMURA’s apparatus comprises a substrate treating unit (nozzle 114, see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 19-28), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate . . . .” For example, nozzle 114 is connected to a tank (see col. 6 lines 21-22), wherein a water repellent can be provided in such tank and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle 114 (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 19-28).
It is noted that the recited “water repellent” is not positively claimed—for example, the claim does not recite that the substrate treating apparatus comprises the water repellent or comprises a container filled with the water repellent—and thus “water repellent” is not interpreted as a requisite structural feature of the claimed apparatus.
The phrase “a decomposition solution mixing mechanism configured to mix a decomposition solution for decomposing the water repellent to a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pipe (as explained above). KIMURA’s apparatus comprises a decomposition solution mixing mechanism (a supply pipe connected to nozzle 140A or 140B, see annotated Fig. 2 above), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “mix a decomposition solution . . . .” For example, nozzle 114 is connected to a tank (see col. 6 lines 21-22), which means another liquid can be provided in such tank to be supplied to the substrate before or during the water-repellent treatment, thereby forming the recited “a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment.” As another example, a decomposition solution can be provided as the solvent that flows through the supply pipe into tank 124A/124B (see annotated Fig. 2), which is a discharge area that the water repellent-containing liquid can flow to (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46); in other words, the water repellent-containing liquid can flow into tank 124A/124B via chamber drain pipe 122A/122B, and the decomposition solution can flow into the same tank via the supply pipe (see annotated Fig. 2).
It is noted that the recited “decomposition solution” is not positively claimed—for example, the claim does not recite that the substrate treating apparatus comprises the decomposition solution or comprises a container filled with the decomposition solution—and thus “decomposition solution” is not interpreted as a requisite structural feature of the claimed apparatus. This also applies to “a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment.”
The phrase “a discharging unit configured to discharge a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pipe (as explained above). KIMURA’s apparatus comprises a discharging unit (e.g., means 124 with drain pipes 122A/122B and drain pipes 128A/128B, see Fig. 2), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “discharge a mixed liquid . . . to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus.” For example, a fluid can be discharged to the outside by flowing through drain pipes 122A/122B, means 124, and then drain pipes 128A/128B (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46, lines 54-59).
As explained above, “water repellent” and “decomposition solution” are not interpreted as requisite structural features of the claimed apparatus; this also applies to “a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution.”
Regarding Claim 2, KIMURA teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
KIMURA teaches that the substrate treating unit includes:
a chamber (cup DC) configured to accommodate the substrate (see Fig. 2);
a water repellent nozzle (nozzle 114), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “supply the water repellent to the substrate accommodated in the chamber.” For example, nozzle 114 is connected to a tank (see col. 6 lines 21-22), wherein a water repellent can be provided in such tank and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle 114 (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 19-28).
KIMURA teaches that the discharging unit includes:
a chamber drain pipe (pipe 122A/122B) whose first end is connected to the chamber (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46);
a mixing unit (tank 124A/124B) connected to a second end of the chamber drain pipe (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46); and
a mixing unit drain pipe (pipe 128A/128B) whose first end is connected to the mixing unit (see Fig. 2, pipe 128A connected to tank 124A, pipe 128B connected to tank 124B).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, passing through the mixing unit, via the mixing unit, and the discharging unit discharges the mixed liquid through the mixing unit drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.”
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIMURA’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, both the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution can flow to tank 124A/124B, which reads on the recited “mixing unit”; in turn, such mixing unit is connected to mixing unit drain pipe 128A/128B, which means any fluid in the mixing unit can be discharged to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, KIMURA teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
KIMURA teaches that the substrate treating unit includes:
a chamber (cup DC) configured to accommodate the substrate (see Fig. 2);
a water repellent nozzle (nozzle 114), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “supply the water repellent to the substrate accommodated in the chamber.” For example, nozzle 114 is connected to a tank (see col. 6 lines 21-22), wherein a water repellent can be provided in such tank and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle 114 (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 19-28).
KIMURA teaches that the discharging unit includes:
a chamber drain pipe (pipe 122A/122B) whose first end is connected to the chamber (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46);
a drain tank (tank 124A/124B) connected to a second end of the chamber drain pipe (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46); and
a tank drain pipe (pipe 128A/128B) whose first end is connected to the drain tank (see Fig. 2, pipe 128A connected to tank 124A, pipe 128B connected to tank 124B).
KIMURA teaches a supply port (nozzle 140A/140B) provided in the drain tank (see Fig. 2, nozzle 140A is the supply port in tank 124A, nozzle 140B is the supply port in tank 124B).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, stored in the drain tank” via the supply port and “the discharging unit discharges the mixed liquid through the tank drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.”
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIMURA’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, both the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution can flow to drain tank 124A/124B; in turn, such drain tank is connected to the tank drain pipe 128A/128B, which means any fluid in the drain tank can be discharged to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, KIMURA teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 3.
KIMURA teaches the discharging unit includes a decompression pump (pump 138, see Fig. 2, col. 7 lines 36-50), which is structurally fully capable of exhausting gas within the chamber and the drain tank. This is because the decompression pump 138 is in fluid communication with the drain tank 124A/124B (see id.), which in turn is in fluid communication with the chamber DC (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decompression pump decompresses the chamber and decompresses the drain tank such that a tank pressure value in the drain tank is made lower than a chamber pressure value in the chamber”;
“the water repellent nozzle supplies the water repellent while the chamber is decompressed”; and
“the discharging unit discharges the water repellent-containing liquid stored in the chamber to the drain tank through the chamber drain pipe when the tank pressure value is lower than the chamber pressure value and the water repellent nozzle supplies the water repellent.”
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIMURA’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions. For example, pump 138 can decompress the chamber DC and decompress the drain tank 124A/124B (as explained above). Because the drain tank 124A/124B is positioned closer to the pump 138 than the chamber DC—i.e., the drain tank is downstream of the chamber (see Fig. 2)—the pump 138 can decompress the chamber DC and the drain tank 124A/124B such that a tank pressure value in the drain tank 124A/124B is made lower than a chamber pressure value in the chamber DC. As another example, nozzle 114 can supply the water repellent (as explained above); this supplying function can be performed while pump 138 is activated, i.e., while chamber DC is decompressed. As a further example, the discharging unit (e.g., drain pipe 122A/122B) can discharge a liquid stored in the chamber DC to the drain tank 124A/124B through the chamber drain pipe 122A/122B (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 29-46); this discharging function can be performed while pump 138 is activated (i.e., while the tank pressure is lower than the chamber pressure) and while nozzle 114 supplies the water repellent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US PGPUB 20240017284).
Regarding Claim 1, KIM teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate (see, e.g., apparatus 1000, Figs. 4-8, ¶ 0066; apparatus 1000B, Fig. 11, ¶ 0093; apparatus 1000C, Fig. 12, ¶ 0099; see also annotated Fig. 5A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a substrate treating unit configured to supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate to perform water-repellent treatment to the substrate” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a nozzle (as explained above). KIM’s apparatus comprises a substrate treating unit (nozzle portion N, see Figs. 4 & 11-12, ¶ 0070), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate . . . .” For example, a water repellent can be provided in source 1210 and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle portion N (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0070).
It is noted that the recited “water repellent” is not positively claimed—for example, the claim does not recite that the substrate treating apparatus comprises the water repellent or comprises a container filled with the water repellent—and thus “water repellent” is not interpreted as a requisite structural feature of the claimed apparatus.
The phrase “a decomposition solution mixing mechanism configured to mix a decomposition solution for decomposing the water repellent to a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pipe (as explained above). KIM’s apparatus comprises a decomposition solution mixing mechanism (supply pipe 1400, see Figs. 4-12, ¶ 0074), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “mix a decomposition solution . . . .” For example, another liquid may be supplied to the substrate (see ¶ 0057), thereby forming the recited “a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment.” As another example, a decomposition solution can be provided as the cleaning liquid that flows through supply pipe 1400 into a junction 1320/1321 (see annotated Fig. 5A above), which is a discharge area that the water repellent-containing liquid can flow to (see Figs. 4-12, ¶¶ 0073-74); in other words, as the water repellent-containing liquid flows to junction 1320/1321, the decomposition solution can also be supplied into junction 1320/1321.
It is noted that the recited “decomposition solution” is not positively claimed—for example, the claim does not recite that the substrate treating apparatus comprises the decomposition solution or comprises a container filled with the decomposition solution—and thus “decomposition solution” is not interpreted as a requisite structural feature of the claimed apparatus. This also applies to “a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment.”
The phrase “a discharging unit configured to discharge a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pipe (as explained above). KIM’s apparatus comprises a discharging unit (e.g., exhaust line 1300 comprising exhaust pipes 1310, 1320, 1330, see Figs. 6-7, ¶¶ 0072-73), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “discharge a mixed liquid . . . to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus.” For example, a fluid within exhaust line 1300 can be discharged to the outside via pump P and/or suction portion 1600 (see Figs. 4, 6-12, ¶¶ 0072-73, 0077).
As explained above, “water repellent” and “decomposition solution” are not interpreted as requisite structural features of the claimed apparatus; this also applies to “a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution.”
Regarding Claim 2, KIM teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
KIM teaches that the substrate treating unit includes:
a chamber (cup 1130) configured to accommodate the substrate (see Figs. 4 & 11-12);
a water repellent nozzle (nozzle portion N), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “supply the water repellent to the substrate accommodated in the chamber.” For example, a water repellent can be provided in source 1210 and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle portion N (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0070).
KIM teaches that the discharging unit includes:
a chamber drain pipe (pipe 1310) whose first end is connected to the chamber (see Figs. 4, 5A-5B, 11-12, ¶ 0073; see also annotated Fig. 5A above);
a mixing unit (pipe 1320; see also annotated Fig. 5A) connected to a second end of the chamber drain pipe (see Figs. 5-10, pipe 1320 is connected to pipe 1310); and
a mixing unit drain pipe (pipe 1330) whose first end is connected to the mixing unit (see Figs. 5-10, pipe 1330 is connected to pipe 1320).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, passing through the mixing unit, via the mixing unit, and the discharging unit discharges the mixed liquid through the mixing unit drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.”
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, both the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution can flow to junction 1320/1321, which reads on the recited “mixing unit”; in turn, such mixing unit is connected to mixing unit drain pipe 1330, which means any fluid in the mixing unit can be discharged to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, KIM teaches the substrate treating apparatus of claim 1.
KIM teaches that the substrate treating unit includes:
a chamber (cup 1130) configured to accommodate the substrate (see Figs. 4 & 11-12);
a water repellent nozzle (nozzle portion N), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “supply the water repellent to the substrate accommodated in the chamber.” For example, a water repellent can be provided in source 1210 and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle portion N (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0070).
KIM teaches that the discharging unit includes:
a chamber drain pipe (pipe 1310) whose first end is connected to the chamber (see Figs. 4, 5A-5B, 11-12, ¶ 0073; see also annotated Fig. 5A above);
a drain tank (pipe 1320; see also annotated Fig. 5A) connected to a second end of the chamber drain pipe (see Figs. 5-10, pipe 1320 is connected to pipe 1310); and
a tank drain pipe (pipe 1330) whose first end is connected to the drain tank (see Figs. 5-10, pipe 1330 is connected to pipe 1320).
KIM teaches a supply port provided in the drain tank (see annotated Fig. 5A above).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, stored in the drain tank” via the supply port and “the discharging unit discharges the mixed liquid through the tank drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.”
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, both the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution can flow to junction 1320/1321, which reads on the recited “drain tank”; in turn, such drain tank is connected to the tank drain pipe 1330, which means any fluid in the drain tank can be discharged to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HIGASHIJIMA et al. (US PGPUB 20170200624).
Regarding Claim 1, HIGASHIJIMA teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate (see Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0053; see also annotated Fig. 4A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
587
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a substrate treating unit configured to supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate to perform water-repellent treatment to the substrate” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a nozzle (as explained above). HIGASHIJIMA’s apparatus comprises a substrate treating unit (nozzle 41, see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0056-57), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “supply a water-insoluble water repellent to the substrate . . . .” For example, a water repellent can be provided in any of the sources 70A-70D and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle 41 (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0056-57).
It is noted that the recited “water repellent” is not positively claimed—for example, the claim does not recite that the substrate treating apparatus comprises the water repellent or comprises a container filled with the water repellent—and thus “water repellent” is not interpreted as a requisite structural feature of the claimed apparatus.
The phrase “a decomposition solution mixing mechanism configured to mix a decomposition solution for decomposing the water repellent to a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pipe (as explained above). HIGASHIJIMA’s apparatus comprises a decomposition solution mixing mechanism (supply pipe 81A, see Fig. 3, ¶ 0113), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “mix a decomposition solution . . . .” For example, another liquid may be supplied to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0056-57), thereby forming the recited “a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment.” As another example, a decomposition solution can be provided in source 83 and supplied through pipe 81A into the mixing unit (see annotated Fig. 4A above), which is a discharge area that the water repellent-containing liquid can flow to (see Fig. 4A, ¶¶ 0085-86); in other words, the water repellent-containing liquid can flow to the mixing unit via pipe 91A and the decomposition solution can flow to the mixing unit via pipe 81A.
It is noted that the recited “decomposition solution” is not positively claimed—for example, the claim does not recite that the substrate treating apparatus comprises the decomposition solution or comprises a container filled with the decomposition solution—and thus “decomposition solution” is not interpreted as a requisite structural feature of the claimed apparatus. This also applies to “a water repellent-containing liquid that contains the water repellent as a waste liquid generated through the water-repellent treatment.”
The phrase “a discharging unit configured to discharge a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pipe (as explained above). HIGASHIJIMA’s apparatus comprises a discharging unit (drain pipe 91A, see Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0086), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “discharge a mixed liquid . . . to an outside of the substrate treating apparatus.” For example, drain pipe 91A performs discharging (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0086, 0117).
As explained above, “water repellent” and “decomposition solution” are not interpreted as requisite structural features of the claimed apparatus; this also applies to “a mixed liquid of the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution.”
Regarding Claim 2, HIGASHIJIMA teaches the substrate treating apparatus of Claim 1.
HIGASHIJIMA teaches the substrate treating unit includes:
a chamber (cup 50; see also annotated Fig. 4A above) configured to accommodate the substrate (see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0052, 0060-62); and
a water repellent nozzle (nozzle 41, see Fig. 3), which is structurally fully capable of supplying the water repellent to the substrate accommodated in the chamber. For example, a water repellent can be provided in any of the sources 70A-70D and then supplied to substrate W via nozzle 41 (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0056-57).
HIGASHIJIMA teaches the discharging unit includes: a chamber drain pipe (see annotated Fig. 4A above) whose first end is connected to the chamber (see id.); a mixing unit (see id.) connected to a second end of the chamber drain pipe (see id.); and a mixing unit drain pipe (see id.) whose first end is connected to the mixing unit (see id.).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid, passing through the mixing unit, via the mixing unit, and the discharging unit discharges the mixed liquid through the mixing unit drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.”
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, both the water repellent-containing liquid and the decomposition solution can flow to the mixing unit (see annotated Fig. 4A); in turn, such mixing unit is connected to the mixing unit drain pipe (see id.), which means any fluid in the mixing unit can be discharged to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, HIGASHIJIMA teaches the substrate treating apparatus of Claim 2. HIGASHIJIMA teaches a supply port provided in the chamber (see annotated Fig. 4A).
The following functional language is interpreted as intended use:
“the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the water repellent-containing liquid stored in the chamber” via the supply port.
That’s because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. KIM’s apparatus is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function. KIM teaches that as a liquid is spun off the substrate, the liquid falls into a drain groove (e.g., drain grooves 501B, 501C, see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0078, 0082, 0094, 0097) of the chamber 50, wherein the liquid can be stored in the chamber 50 by closing a valve (e.g., valves 62B, 62C, see Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0088). Moreover, a decomposition solution can be provided in source 83 and then supplied into the chamber 50 via supply port 51A (see Figs. 4A-4C, ¶ 0125), wherein the decomposition solution can mix with any liquid stored in drain grooves 501B and 501C (see Figs. 4B-4C, ¶¶ 0126, 0138).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claims 5-7, the dependent claims. The most relevant prior art references are: KIMURA et al. (US Patent 5711809); KIM et al. (US PGPUB 20240017284); and HIGASHIJIMA et al. (US PGPUB 20170200624). Their teachings are presented above.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate treating apparatus with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in the claim, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
the discharging unit includes:
a water-sealing vacuum pump configured to exhaust gas within the chamber;
a seal water tank configured to store seal water;
a pump exhaust pipe configured to connect the water-sealing vacuum pump and the seal water tank for feeding gas in the chamber and the seal water from the water-sealing vacuum pump to the seal water tank;
a circulating pipe configured to connect the seal water tank and the water-sealing vacuum pump for returning the seal water from the seal water tank to the water-sealing vacuum pump;
a seal water tank exhaust pipe whose first end is connected to the seal water tank; and
a seal water tank drain pipe whose first end is connected to the seal water tank,
the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the seal water as the water repellent-containing liquid, stored in the seal water tank, via a supply port provided in the seal water tank, and
the discharging unit discharges the seal water through the seal water tank drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus when discharging the seal water as the mixed liquid within the seal water tank.
Claim 6 depends on Claim 5 and contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons as provided above for Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate treating apparatus with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in the claim, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
the discharging unit includes:
a water-sealing vacuum pump configured to exhaust gas within the chamber;
a seal water tank configured to store seal water;
a pump exhaust pipe configured to connect the water-sealing vacuum pump and the seal water tank for feeding gas in the chamber and the seal water from the water-sealing vacuum pump to the seal water tank;
a circulating pipe configured to connect the seal water tank and the water-sealing vacuum pump for returning the seal water from the seal water tank to the water-sealing vacuum pump;
a seal water tank exhaust pipe whose first end is connected to the seal water tank;
a seal water tank drain pipe whose first end is connected to the seal water tank;
a second mixing unit connected to a second end of the seal water tank drain pipe; and
a second mixing unit drain pipe whose first end is connected to the second mixing unit,
the decomposition solution mixing mechanism mixes the decomposition solution to the seal water, passing through the second mixing unit, via the second mixing unit when the discharging unit discharges the seal water as the water repellent-containing liquid from the seal water tank, and
the discharging unit discharges the mixed liquid through the second mixing unit drain pipe to the outside of the substrate treating apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights