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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-10 are pending and claims 1, 6, and 9 are amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Messer (U.S. 6308864).
With respect to claims 1 and 6 Messer discloses a substrate processing device (figure 1), comprising:
a substrate supporting portion (16) configured to support a substrate (34);
a liquid supply system (having manifold 42 and adhesive inlet apertures 58 and a through passage 58, column 5 rows 5-10) configured to provide a liquid (adhesive);
a gas supply device (providing the air pressure to the cylinders via the lines 30); and
a pneumatic control nozzle assembly (figure 9) connected to the liquid supply system (as it receives the liquid adhesive) and configured to apply the liquid to the substrate (as shown in figure 1), wherein the pneumatic control nozzle assembly comprises:
a nozzle body (being the body of 64) comprising an inlet end (inlet end adjacent 74, see figure 8, as the inlet is at 58), an outlet end (the end ending at 84), and an internal channel (internal channel about 62), wherein the internal channel connects the inlet end and the outlet end (see figures 8 and 9, where it allows the adhesive to flow from 58 and be supplied out of the nozzle tip 84), and the nozzle body allows the liquid to enter through the inlet end (inlet at 58) and flow through the internal channel and then be discharged from the outlet end (out of 84);
a closed movable element movably disposed in the internal channel of the nozzle body (52/62); and
a pneumatic driving part (pneumatic cylinders 44b, see figure 3) connected to the nozzle body (as shown in figures 4-9, where the pneumatic driver is attached via the valve and connecting structure to the nozzle body) and the closed movable element (as the pneumatic cylinders move the valve, column 7 rows 10-30), and wherein the pneumatic driving part (being the pneumatic cylinders) is configured to be connected to the gas supply device (being the device bringing air pressure to the cylinders, column 5 rows 45-60, via the lines 30), and in response to a positive pressure gas (i.e. the supplied air pressure) or a negative pressure provided by the gas supply device (i.e. the supply via lines 30), the pneumatic driving part drives the closed movable element to perform a linear movement in the internal channel so that the nozzle body changes between an open state and a closed state (being the linear movement of the valve stem 52 upwards and downwards), wherein when the nozzle body is in the closed state, the closed movable element plugs the outlet end located at an end of the nozzle body (column 7 rows 30-40).
With respect to claims 2 and 7, Messer discloses the nozzle body is in the closed state, an end of the closed movable element protrudes out of the outlet end of the nozzle body (see figure 9, where the end is slightly protruding out of the outlet end).
With respect to claims 3 and 8, Messer discloses the nozzle body is in the closed state, an end of the closed movable element is flush with the outlet end of the nozzle body (see figure 8, column 7 rows 30-40).
With respect to claim 4, Messer discloses the nozzle body is in the open state, an end of the closed movable element is spaced a distance from the outlet end of the nozzle body and a tube wall of the internal channel (column 8 rows 30-35).
With respect to claim 5, Messer discloses the linear movement of the closed movable element comprises movement toward or away from the outlet end of the nozzle body (as 52 moves in a linear fashion).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer in view of DeForest (U.S. 2018/0281005).
With respect to claim 9, Messer discloses a control method of a substrate processing device, comprising:
providing a substrate processing device (figure 1), wherein the substrate processing device comprises a substrate supporting portion (16), a liquid supply system (manifold 42, with the adhesive being deliver there to), and a pneumatic control nozzle assembly (64) connected to the liquid supply system (as shown in figure 8); a gas supply device (being the gas supply to lines 30) and the pneumatic control nozzle assembly comprises a nozzle body (the body of 64), a closed movable element (52/62, 62 being indicated at the end of valve steam 52), and a pneumatic driving part (pneumatic cylinders 44b, see figure 3), the nozzle body comprises an inlet end (inlet adjacent that of 74), an outlet end (outlet end at 64), and an internal channel (within 78b), the closed movable element is movably disposed in the internal channel of the nozzle body (as it moves within the channel), and the pneumatic driving part is connected to the nozzle body and the closed movable element (as it is connected to the nozzle body via the closed movable element that it moves), the pneumatic driving part is configured to be connected to the gas supply device (via the lines 30);
disposing a substrate on the substrate supporting portion (placing 34 onto 16);
driving the closed movable element by the pneumatic driving part to move away from the outlet end of the nozzle body (moving 52 upwards), so that the nozzle body is in an open state (column 7 rows 10-20);
starting the liquid supply system to apply a liquid onto the substrate through the pneumatic control nozzle assembly (applying the adhesive through 58, via adhesive supplied to manifold 42); and
in response to a positive pressure (being the air pressure from line 30) provided by the gas supply device (via lines 30) driving the closed movable element by the pneumatic driving part to move toward the outlet end of the nozzle body until the closed movable element plugs the outlet end located at an end of the nozzle body, so that the nozzle body is in a closed state (column 7 rows 30-50). Messer fails to specifically disclose that the closed element being moved to an open state happens in response to a negative pressure gas provided by the gas supply device.
DeForest, paragraph 0159, discloses that a negative pressure moves the element into an open position in a pneumatically controlled system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a negative pressure is applied to the pneumatic system to move an element from a closed to open position as disclosed by DeForest into the system of Messer, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is how pneumatic systems open something, by moving the cylinder to open a device pressure needs to decrease within the pneumatic cylinder and thus negative pressure (bleeding out the pressure) has to occur.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer and DeForest as seen in claim 9 above and further in view of Yajima (U.S. 2007/0221126)
With respect to claim 10, Messer discloses before driving the closed movable element by the pneumatic driving part to move toward the outlet end of the nozzle body, but fails to disclose the control method further comprises: stopping the liquid supply system; and drawing a residual liquid away from the internal channel by a suck back mechanism.
Yajima, paragraph 0064, discloses a suck-back operation to prevent dripping of the chemical liquid from the nozzle after dispensing the predetermined amount of chemical, with further movement of the fluid inlet to a closed state (paragraph 0052 where body 33 is closed and thus preventing supply during the sucking).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilizing the suck back system and stopping the liquid supply as disclosed by Yajima into the system of Messer, preventing unwanted dripping of fluid in the system.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (09/14/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-10 are pending and claims 1, 6, and 9 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (07/15/2026).
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the pneumatic driving part connected toa gas supply device. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Messer discloses pneumatic lines 30 which provide air pressure to all pneumatic cylinders, those lines are connected then to a source of pressurized air that allows the lines to brig them to the cylinders (column 5 rows 54-60). The source/supply itself is not disclosed, but the air pressure has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the supply/source (it could be a tank, compressor, or other means for generating air pressure). The further noted “in response to a positive pressure gas or a negative pressure gas provided by the gas supply device, the pneumatic driving part drives the closed movable element to perform a linear movement in the internal channel.” The above rejected discloses the air pressure (being positive pressure of the air) in the closing action. DeForest was utilized to teach something that is well known in the art (and although the word inherent is frowned upon, would be inherent in the system of Messer) that pneumatic devices that open a device, require the cylinder opening, which requires a decrease of pressure within the cylinder, and thus a negative air pressure applied to the cylinder. DeForest specifically teaches this positive to close and negative to open in paragraph 0159, and that’s how its understood Messer is working to one of ordinary skill in the art (positive pressure applied to a pneumatic cylinder to move it in one direction and negative pressure applied to a pneumatic cylinder to move it in the opposite direction).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
