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 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.
Claims 1-7, 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,412,501 to Onoda in view of US Patent 5,884,640 to Fishkin.
In Reference to Claims 1-4
Onoda discloses a substrate drying device comprising: a dry tank (Fig. 1, as showed) in which a plurality of substrates are aligned at a predetermined pitch; a treatment liquid supply part (Fig. 1, 97) that supplies a treatment liquid to the dry tank; an organic solvent supply part (Fig. 1, 105) that supplies an organic solvent to the dry tank; and an inert gas supply part (Fig. 1, 98) that supplies an inert gas to the dry tank, wherein the dry tank is provided with a substrate support part (Fig. 1, 5) that supports the plurality of substrates,
Onoda dose not teach an interval securing member
Fishkin teaches an interval securing member (Fig. 4, 170) that is driven to come proximate to ends of the plurality of substrates supported by the substrate support part and secure an interval between the substrates. (The Office considers the at secure an interval as the result of recited structure. Since the item 170 is a holding clamp, therefore, the relative position between substrates would be hold)
the interval securing member (Fig. 4, Fishkin shows a plurality of holding clamp 170) includes a first interval securing member that comes proximate to first ends of the plurality of substrates and a second interval securing member that comes proximate to second ends of the plurality of substrates.
the first ends are lower than the second ends, and wherein the substrate drying device further comprises: a first driving part that drives (Col. 8, Line 30-40 teaches: the control system actuates the holding clamps 170 to press their holding surfaces 64 against the substrate 55) the first interval securing member; and a second driving part that drives the second interval securing member. (AS showed in Fig. 4, 2 holding clamps are positioned above 2 holding clamps)
a controller, wherein the controller operates the first driving part and the second driving part at different timings. (Col. 8, Line 30-40 teaches: the control system actuates the holding clamps 170 to press their holding surfaces 64 against the substrate 55)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Fishkin into the design of Onoda. Doing so, would result in the holding clamp of Fishkin being integrated into the system of Onoda. Both inventions of Fishkin and Onoda are in the same field of invention, Fishkin teaches a method of securing the substrate position (Col. 8, 55-60) with a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 6
Onoda discloses the substrate drying system.
Onoda does not teach the clamp holding system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Fishkin into the design of Onoda. Doing so, would result in the holding clamp of Fishkin being integrated into the system of Onoda. Both inventions of Fishkin and Onoda are in the same field of invention, Fishkin teaches a method of securing the substrate position (Col. 8, 55-60) with a predictable result of success.
The combination of Onoda and Fishkin does not teach the detail operation step of the holding clamp.
Fishkin teaches a controller controlling the operation of the clamp, (Col. 8, Line 30-40 teaches: the control system actuates the holding clamps 170 to press their holding surfaces 64 against the substrate 55), Fishkin does not teach the operation steps of the clamp, However, according to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claim 7
Onoda discloses substrates are hold be the support 5.
Onoda does not teach the pitch angle. At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been common practice, which normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient, which is mere changes in shape unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B Therefore, it would have been a matter of obviousness rationale to have the substrate pitched as required angle of Onoda Reference to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
In Reference to Claim 9
Onoda discloses the plurality of substrates are placed in the dry tank with being contained in a carrier (Fig. ), and the substrate support part comes in contact with the plurality of substrates via a lower space of the carrier,
Onoda does not teach the interval securing member.
Fishkin teaches the interval securing member (Fig. 4, 170) comes proximate to the plurality of substrates via an upper space of the carrier. (as showed in Fig. )
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Fishkin into the design of Onoda. Doing so, would result in the holding clamp of Fishkin being integrated into the system of Onoda. Both inventions of Fishkin and Onoda are in the same field of invention, Fishkin teaches a method of securing the substrate position (Col. 8, 55-60) with a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claim 10
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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: None prior art teaches the securing member has a part protruding into the gaps between substrates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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 Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights