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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/778898 filed July 19, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 13, 2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that. This is not found persuasive because the process can still be practiced by a different apparatus, such as one where the first measurement unit is not connected to the first nozzle, and is instead part of another arm, or on the substrate support or bowl.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the first and second measurement units in claim 1 and the third measurement unit in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification and claims indicate that the corresponding structure includes an electrode and current measurement circuit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the charging unit" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 will be understood to depend from claim 6 rather than claim 1.
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 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashima (US 2017/0087575) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20200050259).
Regarding claim 1: Hashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a substrate holding unit (110) which holds a wafer (W) while it is treated by an auxiliary nozzle (11) and a main nozzle (14) which are a first and second discharge unit for discharging a first and second processing liquid to the substrate (par. 62, figures 1 and 10), where the auxiliary nozzle (11) is provided with a number of measuring units (51, 52, 53) which measure the charge state of the processing liquid sent to and discharged from the nozzle (11) (pars. 37-38, 46, figure 1). Hashima further discloses that part of controlling the charge of the liquid includes using the main nozzle (14) as a supplement to the auxiliary nozzle (11) based on the charge readings and charge desired (pars. 62-70, figure 10), which suggests that the second nozzle discharges the liquid based on a difference between subsequent charges measured. However, this limitation “discharging a second processing liquid charged based on a difference between the first amount of charges and the second amount of charges to the substrate” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the second nozzle of Hashima is capable of being used in the same way as that claimed.
Hashima fails to explicitly disclose a bowl disposed around the holding unit (110) or a second measurement unit measuring the charges scattered from the substrate to the bowl. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus designed to determine charge level of the liquid which uses a static electricity measurement sensor (171) provided on a bowl (110) in order to measure the static electricity inside the bowl and around the substrate (pages 4, 6, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bowl and static electricity measurement sensor of Lee et al. for the apparatus of Hashima because Lee et al. teaches that it allows for the prevention of problems associated with static electricity not just in the fluid but also around the substrate and the bowl without causing damage to the sensor by way of cleaning chemicals (page 2).
Regarding claim 2: Hashima discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a flow path of the first nozzle (11) and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9).
Regarding claim 3: Hashima discloses that the electrode (71) is covered, or coated by a shielding conductor (76) which shields an external electric field (pars. 42-43, figure 5). Alternatively, the electrode (71) itself is directly coated with a thick shielding film which can be considered to shield an external electric field (par. 39).
Regarding claim 4: Hashima and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which Lee et al. teaches that the static electricity measurement sensor (171) is disposed on a surface of the bowl (110) and includes a circuit connected to the sensor (171) to measure the static electricity voltage and thus current (pages 5-6, figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 5: Hashima and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which Lee et al. shows that the bowl (110) has at least three bowl sections, which can be considered an upper bowl, lower bowl and middle bowl, as shown in the annotated figure below (figure 4). While Lee et al. discloses only a single measurement sensor (171) having an electrode on the upper bowl, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one such sensor (171) and place it on or near the middle bowl and lower bowl because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because trying from a finite number of locations (i.e. putting the duplicate electrodes on the upper, middle, or lower bowl sections) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
[AltContent: textbox (Middle bowl)][AltContent: textbox (Lower bowl)][AltContent: textbox (Upper bowl)]
PNG
media_image1.png
554
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6: Hashima discloses that a number of other nozzles (12, 13) can have the measuring unit and charging configuration as the auxiliary nozzle (11), and while Hashima does not explicitly say that the main nozzle (14) can also have this configuration, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the same electrical configuration for the liquid supply for the main nozzle (14) because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143). In this case, the main nozzle (14) has another measuring unit (53) as well as a charge amount control unit (61) which is a charging unit that charges the liquid (par. 37, 48, figures 2, 7).
Regarding claim 7: Hashima discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a supply flow path of all of the nozzles (11, 12, 13) as well as the main nozzle (14) in the above modification and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9).
Regarding claim 8: Hashima discloses that the charge control unit (61) also includes an electrode (71) for charging the liquid on a surface of the flow path of the nozzle, with a charging circuit (63) connected thereto (par. 38, figure 7).
Regarding claim 9: Hashima discloses that the controller (200) controls the charge control unit (61) (par. 52) and teaches that in use, the process is drawn to measuring the charge amount of the liquid and using the charge control unit (61) to adjust the actual charge based on the measured charges and the desired charge (pars. 36-37, 48-49). While this does not explicitly state that it controls the charging based on the difference between the nozzle charge measurement and bowl charge measurement, this limitation is also considered to be a statement with regard to the intended use of the apparatus, and therefore does not further limit the apparatus claims. In the instant case, the controller (200) of Hashima is capable of basing the measured charge on the difference between the charge measured in the nozzle flow and the charge measured at the substrate/bowl region.
Regarding claim 10: Hashima teaches that the apparatus is drawn to any liquid processing liquid (par. 3) and while Hashima does not explicitly teach that the liquids are anti-reflective solution and a prewet liquid, the contents of the apparatus (i.e., the material used by the apparatus of the substrate it works on) in an apparatus claim are not considered to impart patentability to the apparatus claim (MPEP 2114-2115). Hashima explicitly teaches that any type of liquid processing can be used in this invention (par. 3) so it is clearly capable of being used with an anti-reflective coating liquid or a prewet liquid.
Regarding claim 19: Hashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a substrate holding unit (110) which holds a wafer (W) while it is treated by an auxiliary nozzle (11) and a main nozzle (14) which are a first and second discharge unit for discharging a first and second processing liquid to the substrate (par. 62, figures 1 and 10), where the auxiliary nozzle (11) is provided with a number of measuring units (51, 52, 53) which measure the charge state of the processing liquid sent to and discharged from the nozzle (11) (pars. 37-38, 46, figure 1). Hashima further discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a flow path of the first nozzle (11) and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9).
Hashima discloses that a number of other nozzles (12, 13) can have the measuring unit and charging configuration as the auxiliary nozzle (11), and while Hashima does not explicitly say that the main nozzle (14) can also have this configuration, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the same electrical configuration for the liquid supply for the main nozzle (14) because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143). In this case, the main nozzle (14) has another measuring unit (53) as well as a charge amount control unit (61) which is a charging unit that charges the liquid (par. 37, 48, figures 2, 7), the charge control unit (61) including an electrode (71) for charging the liquid on a surface of the flow path of the nozzle, with a charging circuit (63) connected thereto (par. 38, figure 7).
Hashima further discloses that part of controlling the charge of the liquid includes using the main nozzle (14) as a supplement to the auxiliary nozzle (11) based on the charge readings and charge desired (pars. 62-70, figure 10), which suggests that the second nozzle discharges the liquid based on a difference between subsequent charges measured. However, this limitation “charging the second processing liquid based on a difference between the first amount of charges and the second amount of charges” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the second nozzle of Hashima is capable of being used in the same way as that claimed.
Hashima fails to explicitly disclose a bowl with a recovery line disposed around the holding unit (110) or a second measurement unit measuring the charges scattered from the substrate to the bowl. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus designed to determine charge level of the liquid which uses a static electricity measurement sensor (171) provided on a bowl (110) which has a receiving portion (114) with a drain line (118) and exhaust line (119), the sensor (171) positioned on the bowl in order to measure the static electricity inside the bowl and around the substrate (pages 4, 6, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bowl and static electricity measurement sensor of Lee et al. for the apparatus of Hashima because Lee et al. teaches that it allows for the prevention of problems associated with static electricity not just in the fluid but also around the substrate and the bowl without causing damage to the sensor by way of cleaning chemicals (page 2).
Regarding claim 20: Hashima discloses that both the measuring units (53) and charging units (61) have shielding conductors (76) provided around them such that they are effectively coated with them, the shielding conductors blocking an external electric field (pars. 42-43, figures 5 and 7). Alternatively, the electrodes (71) themselves are directly coated with a thick shielding film which can be considered to shield an external electric field (par. 39).
Claim 10 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashima and Lee et al. as applied to claims 1-9 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 6,159,541).
Regarding claim 10: Hashima discloses that the apparatus is drawn to any liquid processing liquid (par. 3) but Hashima fails to explicitly teach that the liquids are anti-reflective solution and a prewet liquid. However, Sakai et al. discloses a similar spin coating process in which supplies liquids including an anti-reflective solution (col. 1 lines 5-8) and a pre-wetting solvent (col. 13 lines 37-47). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these liquids as taught by Sakai et al. in the apparatus of Hashima because Hashima teaches that it is useful for any type of liquid (par. 3) and because using a known technique to improve a known process is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
2/7/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717