DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/12/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0194281 (henceforth referred to as Yoshida).
As for claim 1, Yoshida teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1: part 1) comprising: a substrate holder (Fig. 2: parts 20-21) that horizontally holds a substrate (Fig. 2: part W) having an upper surface covered with a solid or semi-solid polymer film (paragraph [0272]; Fig. 5A: part 101), one or more peeling gas nozzles (Fig. 2: part 10), and a nozzle actuator (Fig. 2: part 38) that changes a distance from a hit position of the peeling gas with respect to the upper surface of the substrate to a center of the substrate by moving the one or more peeling gas nozzles horizontally (paragraph [0109]; Figs. 2 and 5D).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed one or more peeling gas nozzles as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The one or more peeling gas nozzles would be capable of tears the polymer film by a pressure of a peeling gas such that a peeled portion that has been peeled from the upper surface of the substrate and an adhering portion adhering to the upper surface of the substrate are included in the polymer film by discharging the peeling gas at a first rate toward the upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder, and then changes the adhering portion to the peeled portion with the peeling gas that has entered between the peeled portion and the substrate while discharging the peeling gas at a second rate which is slower than the first rate toward the upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder (paragraphs [0108]-[0118]; Figs. 2-6D). Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As for claim 2, Examiner regards the operation of the claimed nozzle actuator as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The nozzle actuator would be capable of the nozzle actuator positions the one or more peeling gas nozzles at a first discharge position in which the peeling gas hits a non-device-forming region within the upper surface of the substrate when the one or more peeling gas nozzles are discharging the peeling gas at the first rate, and moves the one or more peeling gas nozzles to a position in which the peeling gas hits a device-forming region within the upper surface of the substrate when the one or more peeling gas nozzles are discharging the peeling gas at the second rate (paragraphs [0108]-[0118]; Figs. 2-6D).
As for claim 3, Yoshida further teaches that: the polymer film is a solid or semi-solid film containing a water-soluble polymer (paragraph [0272]), and the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a rinse liquid nozzle (Fig. 2: part 11).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed rinse liquid nozzle as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The rinse liquid nozzle would be capable of discharges rinse liquid containing water toward the upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder, after the polymer film has been peeled from the upper surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0108]-[0118]; Figs. 2-6D).
As for claim 4, Yoshida further teaches a tubular guard (Fig. 2: parts 6 and 60) that receives the polymer film and rinse liquid that have scattered around the substrate from the upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder (paragraphs [0082]-[0085]).
As for claim 6, Yoshida further teaches: a polymer solution nozzle (Fig. 5A: part 9) that discharges a polymer solution toward the upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder, and a heat source (Fig. 5C: part 12) that generates heat to convert a liquid film of the polymer solution on the substrate to the polymer film.
As for claim 7, Examiner regards the operation of the claimed one or more peeling gas nozzles as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The one or more peeling gas nozzles would be capable of discharge the peeling gas toward the upper surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder, until the entire polymer film is peeled from the upper surface of the substrate without being separated (paragraphs [0108]-[0118]; Figs. 2-6D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-9 are 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:
As for claim 5, Yoshida et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0194281, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that: the polymer film is a solid or semi-solid film containing a water-soluble polymer, and a water contact angle with respect to the upper surface of the substrate is 32° or greater. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus taught by Yoshida as claimed.
As for claims 8-9, Yoshida et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0194281, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that: the one or more peeling gas nozzles are a single peeling gas nozzle that discharges the peeling gas at the first rate and discharges the peeling gas at the second rate, the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a flow rate adjustment valve that varies the flow rate of the peeling gas supplied to the one peeling gas nozzle, and the one peeling gas nozzle is a variable opening nozzle an opening area of which decreases when a flow rate of the peeling gas supplied to the peeling gas nozzle increases and the opening area of which increases when the flow rate of the peeling gas supplied to the peeling gas nozzle decreases. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus taught by Yoshida as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVON J SHAHINIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-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, 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.
/LEVON J SHAHINIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights