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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in lines 1-2: “…to be removably from the guide cup…” The suggested change is: “…to be removable from the guide cup…”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in lines 1-2: “…to be removably from the guide cup…” The suggested change is: “…to be removable from the guide cup…”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in line 26: “…the plurality of rod…” The suggested change is: “…the plurality of rods…”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error in lines 1-2: “…to be removably from the guide cup…” The suggested change is: “…to be removable from the guide cup…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9, 15, 16, 18-20 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 9 recites the limitation "…the first load…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "…the second load…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "…the first load…" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "…the second load…" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "…the first rod…" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites: “a plurality of first rods” in line 27; it is unclear which of the plurality of first rods is being referred to as “the first rod”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "…the second rod…" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites: “a plurality of second rods” in line 29; it is unclear which of the plurality of second rods is being referred to as “the second rod”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "…the first load…" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "…the second load…" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keiji et al. (KR20210027142A).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Keiji et al. teaches an apparatus of processing a substrate (see abstract), the apparatus comprising: an outer cup 23 having a treatment space with an open top portion (see figure 1, abstract, page 4 of the translation); a support unit 2 capable of supporting and rotating a substrate W in the treatment space (see figure 1, page 4 of the translation); a guide cup 21 disposed in the treatment space, surrounding the support unit 2, and disposed lower than the substrate W supported on the support unit (see figure 1, abstract, page 4 of the translation); a liquid supply unit 7/9 capable of supplying a treatment solution, such as photoresist (reads on claim 12), to the substrate W supported on the support unit 2 (see figure 1, page 4 of the translation); an exhaust unit 35/37/38 capable of exhausting the treatment space (see figure 1, pages 4, 5 of the translation); and a trap unit 41 capable of capturing fumes (see e.g. mist) generated during a treatment of the substrate W (see figure 1, abstract, pages 5-8 of the translation), wherein a space between the outer cup 23 and the guide cup 21 is provided as a first exhaust passage capable of directing airflow in the treatment space to the exhaust unit 35/37/38, and a space provided by the guide cup 21 is provided as a second exhaust passage connected with the first exhaust passage, the trap unit 41 includes a plurality of rods (see rods disposed between spaces 43, as shown in figures 2, 3, 6, 14, see also comb-shaped trap unit 41 whereby the prongs would read on the rods) spaced apart from each other, and the plurality of rods are provided in both of the first exhaust passage and the second exhaust passage (see figures 1-3, 6, 14, pages 5, 6, 9 of the translation).
Regarding claims 2-4, 14, Keiji et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Keiji et al. also teaches in figures 1-3, 6-14 that the plurality of rods is disposed along a circumferential direction of the substrate W supported on the support unit 2 when viewed from above (reads on claim 2), the plurality of rods is provided with a longitudinal direction inclined with respect to a radial direction of the substrate W supported on the support unit 2 when viewed from above (reads on claim 3), and the plurality of rods is provided with a longitudinal direction inclined downwardly in a direction from the outer cup 23 to the guide cup 21 (reads on claim 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Keiji et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Keiji et al. also teaches in pages 3, 5 of the translation and figures 1-4, that the plurality of rods is provided to be removable (see e.g. removable mounting via hooks 45) from the guide cup 21 and the outer cup 23.
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji et al. (KR20210027142A) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Keiji et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Keiji et al. also teaches in page 5 of the translation and figures 2-3, 6, that a spacing 43 (see figures 2-3, 6 for views from above that show relative widths between the plurality of adjacent rods and the spacings 43 therebetween) between the plurality of adjacent rods allows for the passage of liquid solution therethrough, whereas the plurality of rods pick up the liquid solution. Keiji et al. does not explicitly teach that the spacing is wider than a thickness of the rod. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the width of the spacings may be increased so as to allow for relative greater passage of liquid solution therethrough. Furthermore, it has been determined that changes in relative dimensions constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji et al. (KR20210027142A) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Noh et al. (US20230008351).
Regarding claim 5, Keiji et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Keiji et al. also teaches in figure 1 and page 4 of the translation that the guide cup 21 includes: an inner wall 25 surrounding the support unit 2; an outer wall 26 surrounding the inner wall 25, an adjoining wall connecting the inner wall 25 and the outer wall 26, and having a convex shape; and provides a second exhaust passage surrounded by the outer wall 26, the inner wall 25, and the adjoining convex wall therebetween. Keiji et al. does not teach a top wall connecting the inner wall and the outer wall, and having an upwardly convex shape. Noh et al. teaches a substrate treatment system (see abstract) and that the guide cup 2822 includes: an inner wall surrounding the support unit 2832; an outer wall surrounding the inner wall; and a top wall connecting the inner wall and the outer wall, and having an upwardly convex shape, and provides a second exhaust passage surrounded by the outer wall, the inner wall, and the top wall, in a system configuration that allows for effective performance of the treatment process and maintenance of stable pressures (see abstract, figure 10, paragraphs [0008], [0032], [0088]-[0092], [0127]). Since both Keiji et al. and Noh et al. both teach substrate processing systems with guide cups it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the guide cup in the system by Keiji et al. may include a top wall with an upwardly convex shape connecting the inner wall and the outer wall, so as to allow for a configuration that supports effective performance of the treatment process and maintenance of stable pressures, as shown to be known and conventional by Noh et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Claim 18 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.
Claims 9, 15, 16, 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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 of record is Keiji et al. (KR20210027142A). Keiji et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 6-9, 15, 16, 18-20, including the following limitations of independent claim 18: “…the first rod is disposed at a higher position than the second rod, and the first load and the second load do not overlap when viewed from above, and the plurality of rods is installed while penetrating the outer wall and extending to the second exhaust passage…”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights