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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not include the claimed actuating modules and because it refers to the purported merits of the claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following:
On page 1 of the specification, in the paragraph beginning “The present application”, the phrase “, and issued U.S. Patent No. 12,134,113 on November 5, 2024”, or the like, should be added immediately after “2023” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first actuating module in claims 1 and 8; and second actuating module in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, a first actuating nozzle is interpreted to include: an arm configured to support a nozzle, a support shaft coupled to a lower end of the arm and configured to support the arm, and a rotation actuator configured to rotate the arm about the support shaft, or equivalents thereof; and a second actuating module is interpreted to include: an arm configured to support a nozzle, a support shaft coupled to a lower end of the arm and configured to support the arm, a rotation actuator configured to rotate the arm about the support shaft, and a lifting actuator configured to move the nozzle upward and downward, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2019/0341259 to Um (“Um”).
Regarding claim 1, Um teaches a nozzle unit (abstract) comprising: a first nozzle configured to eject a liquid onto a substrate (Figs. 2 and 6, ref. 398, para [0006] - [0007], [0017] – [0024], [0043], [0050] – [0051]); a first actuating module configured to move the first nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 390, incl. ref. 392, 396 and 397, para [0051]); a second nozzle configured to eject a gas onto the substrate (Figs. 2 and 6, ref. 400, para [0006] - [0007], [0017] – [0024], [0043], [0048] – [0049]); and a second actuating module configured to move the second nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 380, incl. ref. 382, 386 and 388, para [0049]), wherein the second nozzle is located closer to a center of the substrate than the first nozzle (Fig. 2).
Um does not explicitly teach that the second actuating module is configured to be controlled independently of the first actuating module. However, Um also does not explicitly teach that control of the second actuating module is dependent on the first actuating module. Thus, since Um discloses the claimed structural features, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed apparatus, the Um apparatus appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner recited, i.e. wherein the second actuating module is controlled independently of the first actuating module.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. MPEP 2112(III)(A).
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I).
Further, if the Um nozzle unit were not fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Um nozzle unit wherein the second actuating module is configured to be controlled independently of the first actuating module, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control and broaden the range of possible processes available.
Regarding claim 2, Um disclose a nozzle unit wherein the first actuating module comprises: a first arm configured to support the first nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 392, para [0051]); a first support shaft coupled to a lower end of the first arm and configured to support the first arm (Fig. 2, ref. 396, para [0051]); and a first rotation actuator configured to rotate the first arm about the first support shaft (Fig. 2, ref. 397, para [0051]), and the second actuating module comprises: a second arm configured to support the second nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 382, para [0049]); a second support shaft coupled to a lower end of the second arm and configured to support the second arm (Fig. 2, ref. 386, para [0049]); a second rotation actuator configured to rotate the second arm about the second support shaft (Fig. 2, ref. 388, para [0049]); and a second lifting actuator configured to move the second nozzle upward and downward (Fig. 2, ref. 388, para [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, the Um nozzle unit appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are swung and moved to a process position and a standby position by the first rotation actuator and the second rotation actuator, respectively, and the first nozzle is moved to the standby position of the first nozzle immediately after a liquid ejection process is completed (para [0049], [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, the Um nozzle unit appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein the first actuating module and the second actuating module are controlled to adjust a distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle on the basis of a horizontal position of at least one of the first nozzle and the second nozzle (para [0049], [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, the Um nozzle unit appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein the distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle is controlled to be decreased as the first nozzle is moved from above a central area of the substrate to above an edge area of the substrate (para [0049], [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, the Um nozzle unit appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein a height of the second nozzle is controlled to be increased as the second nozzle is moved from above a central area of the substrate to above an edge area of the substrate (para [0049], [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Um appears to discloses a nozzle unit wherein an area of an outlet of the second nozzle is larger than an area of an outlet of the first nozzle (note, e.g., Fig. 3, ref. 430 and para [0055]). Further it is noted that changes in size, proportion or shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and (B).
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.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0341259 to Um (“Um”) in view of US 9,786,523 to Fonseca et al. (“Fonseca”).
Regarding claim 8, Um teaches a substrate processing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a substrate support unit configured to support a substrate (Fig. 2, ref. 340, para [0043]); and a fluid supply unit comprising a nozzle unit configured to supply a processing fluid onto the substrate supported by the substrate support unit, wherein the nozzle unit comprises: a first nozzle configured to eject a cleaning liquid onto the substrate (Figs. 2 and 6, ref. 398, para [0006] - [0007], [0017] – [0024], [0043], [0050] – [0051]); a first actuating module configured to move the first nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 390, incl. ref. 392, 396 and 397, para [0051]); a second nozzle configured to eject an inert gas onto the substrate to dry the substrate (Figs. 2 and 6, ref. 400, para [0006] - [0007], [0017] – [0024], [0043], [0048] – [0049]); and a second actuating module configured to move the second nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 380, incl. ref. 382, 386 and 388, para [0049]), wherein the second nozzle is located closer to a center of the substrate than the first nozzle (Fig. 2).
Um does not explicitly teach an actuating controller configured to independently control the first actuating module and the second actuating module to determine positions of the first nozzle and the second nozzle. However, actuating controllers were known in the art as effective for controlling nozzle positions (see, e.g., Fonseca at, inter alia, col. 5, lines 40-53, col. 7, lines 18-33, col. 10, lines 19-31) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Um apparatus wherein it includes an actuating controller configured to independently control the first actuating module and the second actuating module to determine positions of the first nozzle and the second nozzle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since they were known as effective for controlling nozzle positions and in order to enhance process control and broaden the range of possible processes available.
Regarding claim 9, Um discloses an apparatus wherein the first actuating module comprises: a first arm configured to support the first nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 392, para [0051]);a first support shaft coupled to a lower end of the first arm and configured to support the first arm (Fig. 2, ref. 396, para [0051]); and a first rotation actuator configured to rotate the first arm about the first support shaft (Fig. 2, ref. 397, para [0051]), and the second actuating module comprises: a second arm configured to support the second nozzle (Fig. 2, ref. 382, para [0049]); a second support shaft coupled to a lower end of the second arm and configured to support the second arm (Fig. 2, ref. 386, para [0049]); a second rotation actuator (Fig. 2, ref. 388, para [0049]) configured to rotate the second arm about the second support shaft; and a second lifting actuator configured to move the second nozzle upward and downward (Fig. 2, ref. 388, para [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Um/Fonseca disclose an apparatus wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are swung and moved to a process position and a standby position by the first rotation actuator and the second rotation actuator, respectively, and the first nozzle is moved to the standby position of the first nozzle immediately after a cleaning liquid ejection process is completed (Um, para [0048] – [0051]). It is noted that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claim 14, Um discloses an apparatus wherein an area of an outlet of the second nozzle is larger than an area of an outlet of the first nozzle (note, e.g., Fig. 3, ref. 430 and para [0055]). Further it is noted that changes in size, proportion or shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and (B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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:
The closest prior art reference is US 2019/0341259 to Um. The prior art references of record, taking alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the actuating controller controls a distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle on the basis of a horizontal position of at least one of the first nozzle and the second nozzle, in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights