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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first treatment liquid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second treatment liquid " in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12, & 17-20 allowable over prior art.
Claim 11 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: As the claim makes a distinction between a partition plate and the cup body, a skilled artisan understands that portions of the cup body are not considered the partition plate. The following prior art is considered the closest prior art of record.
Osada (US20120273011A1) discloses a substrate cleaning apparatus having a housing (ref 10) with an inner space, a cup body (ref 40) within the inner space and having a treatment space with an open top, a support unit (refs 21/26) for supporting the substrate in the treatment space, an airflow supply unit (ref 14) installed on an upper wall of the housing and supplying descending airflow to the inner space and the treatment space, a lifting unit [0047] for changing a relative height between the substrate supported by the support unit and the cup body, a liquid supply unit [0035-0036, 0052-0053, & 0058-0059] for supplying a treatment liquid to the substrate supported by the support unit, an exhaust member (ref 18) for exhausting the inner space and the treatment space, and a partition plate (ref 15) is provided within the chamber to divide the space within into an upper area and a lower area. However, Osada makes no indication or desire for the partition member to be moveable in an up and down direction.
Hashimoto (US20110073040A1) discloses a substrate cleaning apparatus having a housing (ref 11) with an inner space, a cup body (ref 20) within the inner space and having a treatment space with an open top, a support unit (refs 35/39) for supporting the substrate in the treatment space, an airflow supply unit (ref 7 & [0082]) installed on an upper wall of the housing and supplying descending airflow to the inner space and the treatment space, a lifting unit [0049] for changing a relative height between the substrate supported by the support unit and the cup body, a liquid supply unit [0038-0039] for supplying a treatment liquid to the substrate supported by the support unit, an exhaust member (ref 51 & 46) for exhausting the inner space and the treatment space, and a partition plate (refs 31 & 50) is provided within the chamber to divide the space within into an upper area and a lower area. However, Hashimoto makes no indication or desire for the partition member to be moveable in an up and down direction.
Shimomura (US20140246424A1) showcases a substrate processing unit having a housing (ref 2), a support unit (ref 1), an air flow supply unit (refs 5 & 23-26) provided on an upper wall of the housing and supplying descending airflow to the inner space, a lifting unit (elevation driving unit), an exhaust member (ref 6), and a partition plate (refs 7 & 207) which divides the inner space into an upper and lower space.
Moriyama (US20240387235A1) discloses the use of a partition plate (ref 160) having movable members thereon (ref 12) utilized to block holes of lifting pins, when such pins are retracted [0065]. However, the partition plate itself is not movable in an up and down direction.
Nemoto (US20240071793A1) discloses a substrate apparatus where partition walls (ref 343) are used to divide gas and liquid discharge spaces [0064]. Although such a partition wall is movable in an up down direction (see Fig.7 arrow of Z) it does not divide the inner space into upper and lower portions.
As can be seen from Osada and Hashimoto, all of the claim is known in the prior art except for the partition member being movable in an up and down direction. Such a feature provides a tangible benefit. The movable partition plate enables improved replacement speed of the atmosphere and reduce the generation of particles within the treatment space (see [02] & [75] of the instant application).
No prior art was found, in the time allotted by the office, providing a teaching or suggestion to modify Osada or Hashimoto allow the partition plate to be movable in an up and down direction. Accordingly, none of the prior art of record fairly teaches or suggests the limitation of the claimed partition plate being movable in an up and down direction. Thus, claims 1 & 17, along with their dependents (but for those which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), are considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights