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 Group I (claims 1-10, 13, 14) in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/25.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuo et al. (JP2005064312A) in view of Mukuda et al. (JP2003059891A) and Sato (US20130061888).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Nobuo et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus that performs washing process on a substrate (see abstract), the substrate processing apparatus comprising: a first processing tank 14 capable of accommodating the substrate W (see figure 4, pages 2-3 of the translation); a second processing tank 12 capable of accommodating the substrate W (see figure 4, pages 2-3 of the translation); a first pure water supply pipe 66 that is communicably connected to a pure water supply source and supplies pure water to the first processing tank 14 (see figure 4, page 3 of the translation); a first recycling pipe 30 that supplies a discharge liquid discharged from the first processing tank 14 to the second processing tank 12; the first recycling pipe 30 includes a buffer tank 40 (see figure 4, page 3 of the translation) (reads on claim 9). Nobuo et al. does not explicitly teach a second pure water supply pipe that supplies pure water to the second processing tank and first and second water supply valves on the first and second pure water supply pipes and a first recycling valve inserted into the first recycling pipe. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second pure water supply pipe may be included in the system so as to allow for increased capacity to supply water to the system. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mukuda et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and a second pure water supply pipe 33 that is communicably connected to the pure water supply source 31 and supplies the pure water to the second processing tank 27; a first supply valve 63 inserted into the first pure water supply pipe 61; a second supply valve 35 inserted into the second pure water supply pipe 33, thereby allowing flow control of the fluid supplied through the first pure water supply pipe 61 and the second pure water supply pipe 33 (see figure 3, page 5 of the translation). Since both Nobuo et al. and Mukuda et al. teach substrate processing systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second pure water supply pipe may be included in the system by Nobuo et al. so as to allow for additional water supply capacity to the second processing tank and first and second water valves as well as a first recycling valve may be included so as to control the flow of fluid through the first and second pure water supply pipes and the first recycling pipe, as shown to be known and conventional by Mukuda et al. Nobuo et al. does not teach explicitly a control unit. Sato teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and a control unit 100 that controls all operations and functional elements of the system including valves, allowing for an automated processing system (see paragraph [0049]-[0052]). Since both Nobuo et al. and Sato teach substrate processing systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a control unit may be included in the system by Nobuo et al. so as to control all functional elements of the system, including opening and closing of the first supply valve, the second supply valve, and the first recycling valve, so as to allow for an automated processing system, as shown to be known and conventional by Sato.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Nobuo et al., Mukuda et al. and Sato together teach the limitations of claim 1. Nobuo et al. teaches that a first recycling pipe 30 that supplies a discharge liquid discharged from the first processing tank 14 to the second processing tank 12; the first recycling pipe including a buffer tank 40; and allowing for the reuse of water and improved efficiency (see figure 4, pages 3-4 of the translation). Nobuo et al. does not explicitly teach a second recycling pipe and second recycling valve and that the second recycling pipe includes a buffer tank. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second recycling pipe that supplies the discharge liquid discharged from the second processing tank to the first processing tank may be included in the modified system by Nobuo et al. so as to allow for the reuse of water and improved efficiency. Hence, in the modified system, it is readily apparent that a second recycling valve may be inserted into the second recycling pipe so as to provide the expected control of fluid flow therein, the second recycling pipe would also include a buffer tank (reads on claim 10), and the control unit would control the opening and closing of the second recycling valve. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-8, 13-14, Nobuo et al., Mukuda et al. and Sato together teach the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Sato teaches that the control unit 100 is capable of operating the substrate processing system according to any desired operational sequence (see paragraphs [0049]-[0052]). Therefore, it is readily apparent that in the modified system by Nobuo et al. the control unit would be capable of running the operational sequences as described in claims 3-4, 6-8 and 13-14. Since all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular manner in which the apparatus is operated is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Nobuo et al. (JP2005064312A). Nobuo et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 5. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711