DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on April 6, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 11-13 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued February 11, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11-13, each contains an acronym "ID" and “IC”. While the acronym maybe defined in the specification, acronyms are improper as they can signify many different things, thus reducing clarity of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 11-13 are withdrawn because the claims have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections on 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko and Knopf are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 2021/0143033) in view of Knopf (US 2009/0040014) and Rasmussen (US 5,164,707).
In regards to claim 1, Kaneko teaches a coating and developing treatment apparatus (10, substrate processing apparatus) comprising:
a housing (2) comprising an accommodation space (S) that accommodates at least a treatment section (13), a thermal treatment section (15) and a solution treatment section (16) which are used to process a wafer/substrate (fig. 1-2; para. 17-20);
a locking mechanism (31a, switch) is provided on an exterior of a door (31) of the housing, the locking mechanism extends from the door and allows access to the accommodation space (fig. 1-2; para. 19, 29-30, 35-36), where it is well known a handle is attached to the exterior of the door and the handle extends from the door;
laser sensors (41-43, detector) and imaging devices (41a-43a) is provided around the housing to detect person/object (fig. 1-2; para. 19-26);
a controller (100) controls the locking mechanism and communicates with the laser sensors and the imaging devices to detect person/object and control the environment of the accommodation space and corresponding control the locking mechanism between open or closed state (fig. 1-2; para. 21, 24-27, 29, 32-33, 35-36).
Kaneko does not explicitly teach the detect a protective gear worn by an operator.
However, Knopf teaches a system (100, 300) that monitors individual employees and grant or restrict access to certain equipment or locations (fig. 1-2, 6-8; para. 64-67). Knopf teaches the system comprises a RFID sensor/reader (106, detector) which detects a RFID tag (104) on personal protective equipment/PPE (102) (protective gear worn by an operator) and where a management system (108) controls access to job site (fig. 1-2, 6-8; para. 30-44).
Knopf teaches the RFID sensor/reader is provided on a piece of equipment (304), where the management system controls a locking mechanism (308) on a door (306) on the equipment. Knopf teaches access is controlled based on at least the level of personal protective equipment being worn (fig. 1, 6-8; para. 64-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the system comprising the RFID sensor/reader, RFID tag(s) on personal protective equipment/PPE and management system of Knopf onto the controller and housing of Kaneko because Knopf teaches it will reduce the risk of workers not wear proper PPE (para. 28-29).
Kaneko and Knopf do not explicitly teach the detector on the support extending from the door in a same direction as a direction in which the handle protrudes.
However, Rasmussen teaches a detection system (50, 86) that is provided on an entryway (12, 88). Rasmussen teaches the detection system comprises a transceivers (52, 56, 90) that extend from the entryway, in the same direction of a handle (fig. 5-6, 10; col. col. 6, lines 5-35, col. 7, lines 25-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the detection system extending from the entryway of Rasmussen onto the sensor and housing of Kaneko and Knopf because Rasmussen teaches it will detect the wearing of specified safety equipment by persons of different heights who are entering a designated area within which use of such equipment is required (col. 2, lines 20-25).
In regards to claim 2, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, where Kaneko teaches the thermal treatment section (15, heat treatment apparatus) that performs thermal treatment on the wafer (fig. 1-2; para. 17) and Knopf teaches the use of insulated (capable of being heat resistant) glove with the RFID tag (para. 5, 30-31, 33).
In regards to claim 4, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, where Kaneko teaches the solution treatment section that performs solution treatment on the wafer (fig. 1-2; para. 17) and Knopf teaches the use of a face shield to protect the employees face/eyes (para. 30, 38), where the use of liquid eye protective google represents a known answer to protect eyes.
In regards to claim 7, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, where Kaneko teaches the space comprises a predetermined gas atmosphere (para. 41, 45) and Knopf teaches the use of the appropriate protective equipment for the working environment and job task (para. 2-4, 20), where the use of face/gas mask or oxygen supply mask or respirator or other breathing apparatus is known in the field.
In regards to claims 11-13, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, where Kaneko teaches the imaging devices (41a-43a) is provided around the housing to detect person/object (biometric information) (fig. 1-2; para. 19-26) and Knopf teaches the use of insulated (capable of being heat resistant) glove with the RFID tag (para. 5, 30-31, 33) along with the management system connected to a display (110) (fig. 1, 6-8; para. 42, 54, 64).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Ito (US 2018/0077754).
In regards to claim 6, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, but do not explicitly teach a processing container of a light irradiation apparatus that irradiates the substrate with light, and the corresponding protective gear includes light protective goggles that protects eyes of the operator against the light.
However, Ito teaches a heating unit (4) comprising a light irradiation unit perform thermal treatment of the wafer, where the treatment is controlled to provide uniform temperature (fig. 1; para. 24-25, 49, 51, 64, 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the heating unit of Ito onto the thermal treatment section of Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen because Ito teaches it will provide uniform heating of wafer (para. 51).
Kaneko, Knopf, Rasmussen and Ito as discussed ,where the use of light intensity or UV protective goggles is known in the field.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Song (US 2019/0371615).
In regards to claim, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, but do not explicitly teach
a container where a reservoir is placed to store a processing liquid supplied to the substrate, and
the corresponding protective gear includes liquid protective goggles that protects eyes of the operator from the processing liquid
However, Song teaches a chemical cabinet (115 container with reservoir) that is connected to a solution bath (110), where the solution bath comprises a mix of chemical to process a wafer (fig. 1, 5; para. 23, 34-35, 52-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the chemical cabinet of Song onto the treatment apparatus of Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen because Song teaches it will allow a change in tech rate (para. 14).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Kalenian (US 2006/0035563).
In regards to claim 10, Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen as discussed, where Kaneko teaches the use of the laser sensors and the imaging devices that represents an electric components, where it is known that an electric cabinet is connected to at least the laser sensors and the imaging devices along with the thermal treatment section and the solution treatment section.
However, Kalenian teaches an electrical cabinets (228) that is provided with a front-end module (124) of a system (120) (fig. 2-3; para. 52, 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the electrical cabinets of Kalenian onto the system of Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen because Kalenian teaches it will provide alternate enhancements and allow for customized processing (para. 61).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed April 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko and Knopf have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kaneko, Knopf and Rasmussen.
Conclusion
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).
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.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights