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
Claims 10, 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 10, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0013029 A1) in view of Furuoya (U.S. PGPUB. 2001/029885 A1) and Iino (U.S. PGPUB. 2021/0276031 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a holder configured to hold a substrate (Paragraph 0033, 0040); a supply nozzle configured to provide a treatment liquid to the substrate (Paragraph 0051); a rotation driver configured to rotate the substrate (Paragraph 0049); a receiving portion configured to receive the treatment liquid scattered from the substrate (Paragraph 0057); an electrode provided on a surface of the receiving portion and configured to receive the treatment liquid (Paragraphs 0017, 0064 0057, 0058 – electrode 7); an insulator covering an electrode surface of the electrode (Paragraph 0056; Figs. 2-5).
The difference between Kim et al. and claim 1 is that a voltage applied to the electrodes is not discussed and using a controller configured to control a voltage to be applied to the electrode is not discussed.
Regarding a voltage applied to the electrodes (Claim 1):
Furuoya teaches in Figs. 5-9 and at Paragraphs 0078-00138 applying a voltage to electrodes surrounding a rotating workpiece holder to attract liquid.
Regarding using a controller configured to control a voltage to be applied to the electrode (Claim 1):
Furuoya teaches at Paragraphs 0047, 0050, 0057, 0112 controlling voltages of the electrodes.
Iino teaches a controller for voltage control at Paragraph 0050, 0055 for controlling the voltage to electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the voltage control of Iino in Furuoya because it allows for controlling the voltages of the electrodes.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the electrode includes: a first electrode; and a second electrode disposed adjacent to the first electrode on a lower side of the first electrode in a direction of gravity, and wherein the voltage controller is configured to apply voltages to the first electrode and the second electrode at respective timings.
Regarding claim 2, Furuoya teaches wherein the electrode includes: a first electrode; and a second electrode disposed adjacent to the first electrode on a lower side of the first electrode in a direction of gravity. (See Figs 6 and 9)
Iino teaches utilizing a voltage controller to control the voltages to electrodes. (Paragraphs 0050, 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the electrode is provided at least on a surface of a receiving surface of the treatment liquid in the receiving portion, the surface of the receiving surface being located above an upper surface of the substrate held by the holder in a direction of gravity.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. teach wherein the electrode is provided at least on a surface of a receiving surface of the treatment liquid in the receiving portion. (See Fig. 1)
Furuoya teaches the surface of the receiving surface being located above an upper surface of the substrate held by the holder in a direction of gravity. (See Fig. 9)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the voltage controller is configured to apply a voltage to the electrode when the substrate is held by the holder.
Regarding claim 9, Furuoya in combination with Iino teach this limitation as discussed above.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is forming a resist pattern on the substrate; and processing the substrate based on the resist pattern to form a semiconductor element. (It should be noted that this is claim limitation is a process limitation and will be given no weight in regard to the apparatus. Assuming arguendo that this method limitation is given weight it will be addressed below.)
Regarding claim 11, Furuoya teach forming a resist pattern on a semiconductor substate for forming a semiconductor device. (Paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0023, 0029)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Furuoya is that it allows for uniform coating. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Iino is that it allows for controlling voltage. (Paragraphs 0050, 0055)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim et al. by utilizing the features of Furuoya and Iino because it allows for uniform coating using controlled voltage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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:
Claims 3-7 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claim 1 in combination with the insulator includes: a first insulator with a first wettability with respect to the treatment liquid; and a second insulator with a second wettability with respect to the treatment liquid, the second wettability being lower than the first wettability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights