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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 is indefinite for the following reasons. It is unclear what is by “adjusting behavior of a variation of a pressure of the working fluid that is supplied to the processing liquid valve depending on an adjustment parameter that is capable of being set variably”. What does applicant mean by “adjusting behavior of a variation of a pressure of the working fluid”? How is the behavior being defined? Does applicant mean that the pressure of the working fluid supplied to the processing liquid valve is being adjusted by an adjustment parameter? What does applicant mean by “depending on an adjustment parameter that is capable of being set variably”? What does applicant consider as an “adjustment parameter”, additionally the limitations of “that is capable of being set variably” is not a positive limitation. How does applicant define variably? Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “acquiring correlation data between a working fluid parameter that indicates behavior of a variation of a pressure of the working fluid that is acquired by a fluid pressure measurement unit that measures a pressure of the working fluid that is supplied to the processing liquid valve and the adjustment parameter”? It is unclear what applicant is trying to claim. Once again, is “behavior of a variation of a pressure of the working fluid” the same or different from the limitations recited in paragraph 1 of claim 1? It is unclear what is being compared (i.e. correlated). Is applicant comparing the pressure of the working fluid being supplied to the valve with that of the actual pressure of the working fluid and then making an adjustment of the pressure of the working fluid by an adjustment parameter? Clarification is requested because claim 1 is replete with 112, second paragraph issues and it is unclear what applicant is trying to claim.
The claim is broadly interpreted as measuring the pressure of the working fluid supplied to the processing liquid valve by measurement unit, comparing the pressure of the working fluid and adjusting the pressure of the working fluid being discharged from the nozzle.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear how the adjustment parameter is being adjusted based on “a previous correlation data”. Claim 3 is further indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “based on whether or not the working fluid parameter is included in an acceptable range”. Specifically, what is considered “an acceptable range”, as claim 1 does not recite the working fluid parameter having ranges. What is applicant claiming? Does applicant mean that the pressure of the working fluid is measured when the discharge of the processing liquid from the discharge nozzle is stopped? Claim 4 is indefinite for similar reasons to that of claim 3. How is the range determined based on the correlation data and what would the skilled artisan consider as an “acceptable range”? Claim 5 is indefinite in view of its dependency. Claim 6 is indefinite because what does the skilled artisan consider as “temporal information”, “temporal change”? Claim 7 is indefinite for similar reasons to that of claim 1. Claim 7 is further indefinite because it recites determining a discharge state of the processing liquid when the discharge state of the liquid from the nozzle is stopped, based on a result of detection of the reflected light”. Specifically, if the discharge state of the liquid from the nozzle is stopped, then the discharge state of the liquid is determined. It is unclear whether the discharge state is determined a) after the liquid from the nozzle is stopped and any additional liquid being discharged to the surface is being detected by the intensity of the reflected light or b) the discharge of the processing liquid from the nozzle is stopped based on the intensity of the reflected light, wherein the intensity of the reflected light determines whether the discharge of the liquid to the nozzle should be stopped. Claims 9-13 should be amended to “the discharge state” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether “behavior of a variation of pressure” is the same or different from the limitations recited in claim 7. Claim 11 is indefinite for similar reasons to that of claim 1. It is unclear what is meant by “a working fluid parameter that indicates behavior of a variation of a pressure of the working fluid that is supplied to the processing liquid valve and the delay time are included in acceptable ranges”. Does applicant mean that the pressure of the working fluid supplied to the liquid valve and the delay time are within acceptable ranges? What would the skilled artisan consider as an acceptable range and/or a “behavior of a variation of the pressure”? Claims 12-13 are indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a “determination reference time”. What is the reference time a measure of? Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear the difference between “ a determination reference value” and “a reference of determination”. Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as “temporal information” and “temporal change”. In summary, the claims are replete with 112, second paragraph issues, significant claim amendments are needed in order to clearly define applicant’s invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodeur et al. (US7610117B2).
In view of the indefiniteness, as described above, claim 1 is directed to sending a processing liquid to a discharge nozzle through a liquid valve towards a substrate and controlling the flow of the processing liquid depending on the pressure of the working fluid that is supplied to the nozzle, the pressure of the fluid to the valve being measured by a measurement unit, measuring the pressure of the working fluid and adjusting the pressure by an adjustment parameter, and limiting the processing liquid sent to the discharge nozzle through the processing liquid valve to stop the discharge of the processing liquid from the discharge nozzle.
Brodeur et al. teach sending a processing liquid (Fig. 1, flow, col. 4, lines 55) to a discharge nozzle 34 through a processing liquid valve 44 to discharge the processing liquid from the nozzle 34, wherein the valve 44 controls the flow of the processing liquid (col. 4, lines 40-42) in a flow channel (32, 36) that is connected to the nozzle 34, depending on the pressure of the working fluid that is supplied. Specifically, the abstract teaches measuring the pressure of the fluid flowing through the flow device 30 by pressure sensors 38 and 40, and using the controller 42 (i.e. fluid pressure adjustment unit) to adjust the flow based on the differential determined from the pressure measurements from multiple pressure sensors. (col. 1-2 bridging). Col. 4, lines 65+ teaches the controller 42 can generate valve control signal 50 to open or close valve 44 to achieve a desired flow rate based on the pressure measured by upstream and downstream pressure sensors 38,40. In reference to adjusting the pressure depending on an adjustment parameter, Brodeur et al. teach the controller can calculate the flow rate based on the pressure sensed by a particular pressure sensor based on known fluid dynamic equations and/or empirical comparison of sensor readings established during calibration (adjustment parameters). The limitations of limiting the processing liquid to the nozzle to stop the discharge would be met as a result of the control signal opening and closing valve 44. The limitations of acquiring correlation data between the pressure variation acquired by the fluid pressure measurement unit and the adjustment parameter are met as a result of measuring the pressure of the fluid by the pressure sensors and controlling the flow rate of the fluid based on the pressure by the controller 42.
Re claim 1, Brodeur et al. do not specifically teach discharging the processing liquid from the discharge nozzle to the substrate, however, col. 1, lines 15-25 are directed to controlling the fluid flow during the manufacturing of semiconductor substrates and determining the flow rate of the fluid in the system, adjusting the flow rate, and using pressure differential mass flow meters to adjust a valve to increase or decrease the flow rate.
Claims 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 2-15. It is noted that the claims are replete with 112, second paragraph issues, for the reasons recited above, and significant claim amendments are suggested in order to properly claimed applicant’s invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ding et al. and Hirata et al. teach pressure based mass flow controllers. Takijiri et al. and Takimoto et al. teach a flow rate control device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc