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
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,729 B2 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,582 B2, both issued to Lee et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 19/026754 are directed to the same invention of claims of U.S. 11,747,729 B2 and U.S 12,235,582 B2. In this instance the claims of application 19/026754 are broader than that of U.S. 11,747,729 B2 and U.S 12,235,582 B2. As such the claim of application 19/026754 is met by claims of U.S. 11,747,729 B2 and U.S 12,235,582 B2.
No further analysis is necessary.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. [US 6,248,175 B1] in view of Desie [US 2004/0165021 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 15, Subramanian et al. discloses a method (Figs. 7-9), comprising:
dispensing a developer agent onto a substrate (52) while the substrate is being rotated (Col. 6 lines 9-65, as shown in Figs. 2-6),
wherein the developer agent is dispensed through: one or more nozzles (44) and one or more nozzles onto a central portion of the substrate, and one or more nozzles onto a perimeter portion of the substrate (as shown in Figs. 2a and 2b).
Subramanian et al. does not teach wherein the developer agent is dispensed through: one or more first nozzles of a first type and one or more second nozzles of a second type onto a central portion of the substrate, and one or more third nozzles of the second type onto a perimeter portion of the substrate, and wherein a first quantity of openings associated with the first type is greater than a second quantity of openings associated with the second type.
However, Desie discloses liquid dispensing head for an imaging apparatus wherein the nozzle configuration comprises one or more first nozzles of a first type and one or more second nozzles of a second type and one or more third nozzles of the second type onto a perimeter portion (as shown in Fig. 2, with nozzles 21 and 22 and 23 and 24), wherein in a single row nozzle openings associated with the first type is greater than a second quantity of openings associated with the second type (as shown in row 14, 21 is more than 22 and in row 15, 23 is more than 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide nozzles of a first type and a second type distributed alternatingly to cover the surface of a substrate wherein the first type is greater than a second type of nozzles, as taught by Desie in the system of Subramanian et al. because such a modification provides a suitable alternative configuration of a liquid dispensing nozzles system for optimizing dispensing across the surface (paragraph [0039] of Desie).
Regarding claims 7 and 16-20, Subramanian et al. discloses further comprising: dispensing a photoresist material on the substrate while the substrate is rotating; and performing an exposure operation to form an exposed photoresist layer on the substrate, wherein the developer agent is dispensed onto the substrate after performing the exposure operation, wherein the photoresist material is solidified on the substrate after the photoresist material is dispensed on the substrate, further comprising: pre-baking the substrate to remove a solvent from the photoresist material, wherein the photoresist material is solidified on the substrate based on pre-baking the substrate, wherein a pattern is formed on a photoresist layer on the substrate based on performing the exposure operation, wherein an exposed photoresist layer is formed on the substrate based on the exposure operation being performed, and wherein a thickness of the photoresist layer on the central portion is greater than a thickness of the photoresist layer on the perimeter portion. (Col. 1 lines 10-65 and Col. 6 lines 9-65).
Regarding claim 9, Subramanian et al. discloses further comprising: a process arm, wherein the process arm comprises a support member and the dispenser (as shown in Figs. 2-6).
Regarding claims 10-14, Subramanian et al. in view of Desie discloses wherein the one or more first nozzles, the one or more second nozzles, and the one or more third nozzles extend downward from a bottom surface of the dispenser, wherein the central portion comprises a greater quantity of nozzles than the perimeter portion, wherein the central portion comprises a plurality of rows of nozzles, further comprising: one or more fourth nozzles of the second type on another perimeter portion of the dispenser, wherein the perimeter portion and the other perimeter portion are on opposing sides of the central portion (in the combination of Subramanian et al. and Desie, as shown in Figs. 2-6 of Subramanian et al. and Fig. 2 of Desie).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. in view of Desie and further in view of Kitamura [US 2001/0043813 A1].
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Subramanian et al. in view of Desie disclose the method, as applied above.
Subramanian et al. in view of Desie does not teach wherein two or more nozzles of the first type are configured to dispense the developer agent at different dispensing angles, wherein the developer agent is dispensed through the first quantity of openings at an angle that is in a range of 0 degrees relative to an axis along a long dimension of a nozzle of the first type to less than 90 degrees relative to the axis.
However, Kitamura discloses a developer dispensing system wherein the nozzle is configure to dispense the developer agent at different dispensing angles (paragraphs [0047]-[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide different dispensing angles as taught by Kitamura in the system of Subramanian et al. in view of Desie wherein two or more nozzles of the first type are configured to dispense the developer agent at different dispensing angles, the first quantity of openings at an angle that is in a range of 0 degrees relative to an axis along a long dimension of a nozzle of the first type to less than 90 degrees relative to the axis, because such a modification provides a suitable alternative configuration of a liquid dispensing nozzles system for balancing the amount of developing solution supplied to a substrate (paragraph [0008] of Kitamura).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. in view of Desie and further in view of Yoshihara et al. [US 2017/0045821 A1].
Regarding claim 6, Subramanian et al. in view of Desie disclose the method, as applied above.
Subramanian et al. in view of Desie does not teach wherein each of the one or more first nozzles comprises the first quantity of openings.
However, Yoshihara et al. discloses a developer dispensing system wherein the nozzles comprises the first quantity of openings (as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide nozzles comprising a quantity of openings, as taught by Yoshihara et al. in the system of Subramanian et al. in view of Desie wherein each of the one or more first nozzles comprises the first quantity of openings, because such a modification provides a suitable alternative configuration of a liquid dispensing nozzles system for providing developer uniformly (paragraph [0079] of Yoshihara et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights