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 .
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.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizawa (US2005/0087300 A1) in view of Shimada (US 2021/0246554 A1) and Kimura (US2016/0089696A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishizawa discloses a substrate processing apparatus for processing a plurality of substrates (abstract), the substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber configured to house a plurality of substrates in a vertical orientation (6A-6C, 20 A-F), in a manner arranged linearly at a predetermined first interval in a horizontal direction (figure 8); a substrate holder provided inside the chamber and configured to hold the plurality of substrates (wafer); a plurality of nozzles (130).
However, Ishizawa does not explicitly disclose a plurality of first nozzles provided inside the chamber and arranged at a predetermined second interval along an arrangement of the plurality of substrates; a plurality of second nozzles provided inside the chamber and arranged at the second interval, along the arrangement of the plurality of substrates, wherein the plurality of first nozzles are disposed on opposite sides of the plurality of second nozzles with respect to the plurality of substrates in plan view, the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles are disposed in a manner facing the plurality of substrates in plan view, the plurality of first nozzles are arranged in a manner offset from the plurality of respective second nozzles by a length corresponding to a half the second interval in a direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged, and each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles is configured to spray a liquid as at least one of mist and droplets.
Analogous art, Shimada discloses a plurality of first nozzles provided inside the chamber and arranged at a predetermined second interval along an arrangement of the plurality of substrates (figure 6 222a);
a plurality of second nozzles (222b) provided inside the chamber and arranged at the second interval, along the arrangement of the plurality of substrates, wherein the plurality of first nozzles are disposed on opposite sides of the plurality of second nozzles with respect to the plurality of substrates in plan view (see figure 6),
the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles are disposed in a manner facing the plurality of substrates in plan view (see figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the chamber and arranged at a predetermined second interval along an arrangement of the plurality of substrates; a plurality of second nozzles provided inside the chamber and arranged at the second interval, along the arrangement of the plurality of substrates, wherein the plurality of first nozzles are disposed on opposite sides of the plurality of second nozzles with respect to the plurality of substrates in plan view, the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles are disposed in a manner facing the plurality of substrates in plan view, the plurality of first nozzles are arranged in a manner offset from the plurality of respective second nozzles by a length corresponding to a half the second interval in a direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged in order to ensure the flow is uniformly spread out [0004].
Neither Ishizawa or Shimada explicitly disclose the plurality of first nozzles are arranged in a manner offset from the plurality of respective second nozzles by a length corresponding to a half the second interval in a direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged. However, it would have been within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art to experiment with different orientations since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. Further, analogous art, Kimura depicts the nozzles (51-54) are offset in figure 1.
As for each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles is configured to spray a liquid as at least one of mist and droplets, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 2, Shimada discloses a control unit (280), wherein the control unit is configured to cause the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles to alternately spray the liquid as the at least one of mist and droplets (Shimada discloses spraying the nozzles are controlled and sprayed respectively by adjusting the amount of gas and through which nozzle [0110-0112]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of nozzles alternatively sprayed since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Shimada depicts wherein, in a condition in which each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles is disposed facing a central axis passing through the plurality of substrates, each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles is configured to spray the liquid as the at least one of mist and droplets so that the liquid is delivered directly across a range from a proximal end to a center of facing substrate (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ishizawa discloses a lifting unit configured to move the substrate holder up and down (claim 10); and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the lifting unit to move the substrate holder up and down [0062] in such a manner that the plurality of substrates are passed between the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles, while the liquid is being sprayed from each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles (Ishizawa[0092]; Shimida [0110-0112]).
Regarding claim 5, Ishizawa discloses further comprising a relative actuator (78) configured to move the substrate holder relatively with respect to the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles, along the direction in which the plurality of substrates are arranged.
Regarding claims 6-7, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ishizawa does not explicitly disclose a solvent supply unit capable of sending a solvent to each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles; and a water repellent supply unit capable of sending a water repellent to each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles, wherein when the solvent supply unit is sending the solvent while the water repellent supply unit is not sending the water repellent, each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles sprays the solvent as at least one of mist and droplets, and when the water repellent supply unit is sending the water repellent while the solvent supply unit is not sending the solvent, each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles sprays the water repellent as at least one of mist and droplets. However, analogous art, Kimura, discloses a solvent supply unit (75) and a water repellent supply (74) for the benefit of cleaning and drying the substrate (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated disclose a solvent supply unit capable of sending a solvent to each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles; and a water repellent supply unit capable of sending a water repellent to each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles as taught by Kimura into the apparatus taught by Ishizawa for the benefit of cleaning the substrate.
As for the limitation, wherein when the solvent supply unit is sending the solvent while the water repellent supply unit is not sending the water repellent, each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles sprays the solvent as at least one of mist and droplets, and when the water repellent supply unit is sending the water repellent while the solvent supply unit is not sending the solvent, each of the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles sprays the water repellent as at least one of mist and droplets, , the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 9, the combination if Ishizawa does not explicitly disclose comprising a processing tank provided inside the chamber and capable of storing a processing liquid, wherein the plurality of first nozzles and the plurality of second nozzles are disposed at positions higher than the processing tank. However, analogous art, Kimura, discloses a processing tank (20) to store chemical liquids [00031] and depicts the nozzles disposed at positions higher than the tank in figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a processing tank in order to support liquids.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights