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.
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) 1-9 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); 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 configured to drive 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).
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); 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);
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
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).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights