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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kotaka et al. (J.P. 3203796U).
Referring to Figure 4 and pages 3-5, Kotaka et al. disclose a hydrophobization treatment apparatus for performing a hydrophobization treatment on a substrate, comprising: a treatment container 101 configured to house the substrate and form a treatment space (Fig. 4, page 3); a first supply port 107 configured to supply first gas from above the substrate in the treatment container to the substrate (Fig. 4, page 4); and a second supply port 122 configured to supply second gas from a position below the substrate in the treatment container to the substrate (Fig. 4, page 4), the hydrophobization treatment apparatus being configured to be able to supply a hydrophobizing gas as the first gas from the first supply port 107, 110 and the second gas from the second supply port 122, 124, wherein in a plan view at least a part of the second supply port overlaps with a center of the substrate (Fig. 4).
With respect to wherein in a plan view at least a part of the second supply port overlaps with a center of the substrate, it should be noted that since the arrangement of the second supply port corresponds to the substrate, then the limitation is considered intended use. In other words, the substrate is not given patentable weight. The apparatus of Kotaka et al. is capable of processing various sized substrates and/or a plurality of substrates. Thus, the apparatus of Kotaka et al. is capable of at least a part of the second supply port overlapping with a center of the substrate simply by positioning a smaller sized substrate (i.e. variable component) over the center of the second supply port.
Note. MPEP 2115 states that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims (i.e. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further includes wherein: the first supply port 107 has a central supply port formed at a position facing the second supply port 122, 123 across the substrate in the treatment container (Fig. 4, page 4); and for the substrate whose both front surface and rear surface are hydrophobization treatment targets, the hydrophobizing gas as the first gas is supplied from the central supply port 107, 110 during the hydrophobization treatment on the front surface (Fig. 4, page 4).
With respect to claim 3, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further includes wherein for the substrate whose both the front surface and the rear surface are the hydrophobization treatment targets, the hydrophobizing gas 110, 124 is supplied to the front surface and the rear surface at a same time (Fig. 4, pages 4-5).
With respect to claim 4, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further includes wherein for the substrate whose both the front surface and the rear surface are the hydrophobization treatment targets, the supply of the hydrophobizing gas to the front surface and the supply of the hydrophobizing gas 110, 124 to the rear surface are performed in order (Fig. 4, page 4).
With respect to claim 5, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further includes wherein: the first supply port 107 has a central supply port formed at a position facing the second supply port 122 across the substrate in the treatment container; and for the substrate whose only front surface is a hydrophobization treatment target, the hydrophobizing gas 110 as the first gas is supplied from the central supply port 107 and an inert gas 125 is supplied as the second gas from the second supply port 122, 123 during the hydrophobization treatment on the front surface (Fig. 4, pages 4-5).
With respect to claim 6, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further comprising an upper outer peripheral exhaust port 115 provided above and outside the substrate in the treatment container and opening to the treatment space, wherein when the hydrophobizing gas 110, 124 is supplied into the treatment container, an inside of the treatment container is exhausted from the upper outer peripheral exhaust port (Fig. 4, page 4).
With respect to claim 16, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further comprising an upper outer peripheral exhaust port 115 provided above and outside the substrate in the treatment container and opening to the treatment space (Fig. 4, page 4); a lateral exhaust port 114 provided on lateral side of the substrate in the treatment container and on a side lower than the upper outer peripheral exhaust port, in a manner to open to the treatment space, wherein in a plan view the upper outer peripheral exhaust port is provided closer to the substrate than the lateral exhaust port is to the substrate (Fig. 4, page 4).
With respect to claim 17, the hydrophobization treatment apparatus of Kotaka et al. further includes wherein the center of the substrate coincides with a center of the second supply port 122, 124 (As stated above, the substrate is considered intended used. Hence, the apparatus of Kotaka et al. is capable of wherein the center of the substrate coincides with a center of the second supply port simply by positioning a smaller sized substrate (i.e. variable component) over the center of the second supply port).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaka et al. (J.P. 3203796U).
Referring to Figure 4 and pages 4-5, Kotaka et al. discloses the hydrophobization treatment apparatus includes wherein the treatment container 101 is configured such that an inside thereof is exhaustable from an exhaust position outside the substrate (Fig. 4, page 3); the first supply port 107 has: a central supply port 107 formed at a position facing the second supply port 122 across the substrate in the treatment container. Additionally, central supply port 107 provides inert gas 111
However, Figure 4 of Kotaka et al. is silent on an outer peripheral supply port formed at a position between the central supply port and the outside exhaust position; and when a hydrophobization treatment is performed on only an outer peripheral portion of the front surface of the substrate in the treatment container, an inert gas as the first gas is supplied from the central supply port and the hydrophobizing gas is supplied as the first gas from the outer peripheral supply port.
Referring to Figures 7-8 and pages 5-6, Kotaka et al. teach a hydrophobization treatment apparatus wherein an outer peripheral supply port 107 when a hydrophobization treatment is performed on only an outer peripheral portion of the front surface of the substrate in the treatment container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Figure 4 apparatus of Kotaka et al. such that a hydrophobization treatment apparatus wherein an outer peripheral supply port when a hydrophobization treatment is performed on only an outer peripheral portion of the front surface of the substrate in the treatment container as taught by Figures 7-8 of Kotaka et al. The modification would yield a one piece construction that would allow either central or peripheral hydrophobization treatment to be performed reducing the footprint and processing costs.
The resulting modification of Kotaka et al. would yield an outer peripheral supply port formed at a position between the central supply port and the outside exhaust position; and when a hydrophobization treatment is performed on only an outer peripheral portion of the front surface of the substrate in the treatment container, an inert gas as the first gas is supplied from the central supply port and the hydrophobizing gas is supplied as the first gas from the outer peripheral supply port.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that by comparison to currently amended claim 1, Kotaka does not teach or suggest that "in a plan view at least a part of the second supply port overlaps with a center of the substrate."
As stated above, it should be noted that since the arrangement of the second supply port corresponds to the substrate, then the limitation is considered intended use. MPEP 2115 states that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. In other words, the substrate is not given patentable weight in apparatus claims because it is not part of the structure of the apparatus. Hence, the arrangement of the second supply port must be described in terms of structure rather than the substrate. Furthermore, the apparatus of Kotaka et al. is capable of processing various sized substrates and/or a plurality of substrates. Thus, the apparatus of Kotaka et al. is capable of at least a part of the second supply port overlapping with a center of the substrate simply by aligning a smaller sized substrate (i.e. variable component) over the center of the second supply port. Therefore, the apparatus of Kotaka et al. satisfies the claimed structural requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsunaga’579, Bang’175, Itonaga et al.’864, Fukuoka et al.’612, Ueda’559, Hirakawa’000, Kanaoka et al.’038, Kukumoto et al.’235, Kodama et al.’856, Tanino’604, Kamimura et al.’515, Fukuoka et al.’390, Kudoh et al.’046, and Shimmura et al.’166 teach a hydrophobization treatment apparatus for processing either a front surface substrate and/or back surface substrate. Matsunaga’050 and Kodama et al.’653 teach a hydrophobization treatment apparatus for processing either a front surface substrate and/or back surface substrate and wherein the second supply port overlaps with a center of the substrate.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights