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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 2, 2026.
Claims 8-10 and 15-18 will be examined on the merits, claims 1-7 having been cancelled and claims 11-14 having been withdrawn.
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0272391 to Sakurai et al.
As to claim 8, Sakurai discloses a substrate treatment device comprising: a placement platform configured to rotate a substrate (see Sakurai Fig. 1, ref.#10, paragraphs [0015]-[0016]); a cooling part configured to supply a cooling gas to a space between the placement platform and the substrate (see Sakurai Fig. 1, ref#30; paragraph [0018]); a liquid supplier configured to supply a liquid to a surface of the substrate opposite to the placement platform side (see Sakurai Fig. 1, ref#20; paragraph [0017]); a detector above the surface of the substrate, the detector being configured to detect a start of freezing of the liquid (see Sakurai Fig. 1, ref.#40; paragraphs [0045]; [0052]); and a controller controlling at least one of the rotation of the substrate, a flow rate of the cooling gas, or a supply rate of the liquid to cause the liquid on the surface of the substrate to reach a supercool state (see Sakurai paragraphs [0056]-[0057] disclosing the controller), when the controller determines based on a signal from the detector that freezing of the liquid in the supercooled state has started, the controller starts thawing the frozen liquid after a prescribed interval has elapsed from the start of the freezing of the liquid (see Sakurai paragraphs [0045], [0049]-[0057] and Fig. 7A-7C disclosing controller determines freezing based on detector when temperature rises from T1 to T2 and then starts thawing after temperature reaches lowest temperature T3 (read as after a prescribed interval has elapsed from the start of freezing)). Sakurai further discloses that the controller can repeatedly perform a set of processes a predetermined number of times and the set of processes includes causing the liquid to reach a supercooled state, freezing the liquid in the supercooled state and starting a thawing of the frozen liquid after a prescribed interval has elapsed from the start of the freezing of the liquid (see Sakurai Figs. 7A-C; paragraphs [0052]-[0054]) and that the controller is configured to determine a start of the freezing the liquid in the supercooled state for each set of processes that are repeatedly executed and start the thawing of the frozen liquid (see Sakurai Figs. 7A-C; paragraphs [0045] and [0049]-[0057]).
As to claim 9, Sakurai discloses that the controller determines the start of the freezing of the liquid by using at least one of a temperature of a film of the liquid detected by the detector or at least one of a temperature of a film of a mixture of the liquid and the frozen liquid detected by the detector (see Sakurai paragraphs [0045], [0049]-[0057] and Fig. 7A-7C).
As to claim 10, Sakurai discloses that the detector detects a temperature of a surface of the liquid in the supercooled state at a prescribed time interval and the controller determines that the freezing of the liquid has started when the temperature of the liquid increases and a difference between one of the detected temperatures and the temperature detected directly before the one of the detected temperatures exceeds a prescribed threshold and/or a rate of the temperature increase exceeds a prescribed threshold (see Sakurai Figs. 7A-C; paragraphs [0045] and [0055]-[0057]).
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.
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(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0272391 to Sakurai et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0078833 to Takai et al.
Sakurai is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 17, Sakurai does not explicitly disclose that the controller suppresses an occurrence of a crack in the frozen liquid to be thawed by setting the prescribed interval to a first interval, the controller causes a crack to occur in the frozen liquid to be thawed by setting the prescribed interval to a second interval and the second interval is greater than the first interval. Takai discloses that it is known in the art to configure a controller to suppress an occurrence of a crack in the frozen liquid to be thawed by setting the prescribed interval to a first interval, or to configure the controller to cause a crack to occur in the frozen liquid to be thawed by setting the prescribed interval to a second interval and the second interval is greater than the first interval (see Takai paragraphs [0077]-[0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sakurai to further configure the controller to suppress an occurrence of a crack in the frozen liquid to be thawed by setting the prescribed interval to a first interval, or to configure the controller to cause a crack to occur in the frozen liquid to be thawed by setting the prescribed interval to a second interval and the second interval is greater than the first interval based on the type of substrate as disclosed by Takai in order to optimize cleaning time based on the type of substrate to be cleaned (see Takai paragraph [0079]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0272391 to Sakurai et al. as applied to claims 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0047559 to Kamiya et al.
Sakurai is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 18, Sakurai discloses that the detector is a temperature sensor (see Sakurai paragraph [0045]). Kamiya discloses that radiation thermometers are known temperature sensors (see Kamiya paragraphs [0085] and [0163]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a radiation thermometer as disclosed by Kamiya and the results would have been predictable (measuring temperature of liquid) (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious).
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 8-10, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,120 to Nakamura et al. (“the ‘120 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to claim 8, the ‘120 patent discloses a substrate treatment device, comprising: a placement platform configured to rotate a substrate; a cooling part configured to supply a cooling gas to a space between the placement platform and the substrate; a liquid supplier configured to supply a liquid to a surface of the substrate opposite to the placement platform side; a detector above the surface of the substrate, the detector being configured to detect a start of freezing of the liquid; and a controller configured to control a rotation of the substrate, a supply of the cooling gas, and a supply of the liquid, wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the rotation of the substrate, a flow rate of the cooling gas, or a supply rate of the liquid to cause the liquid on the surface of the substrate to reach a supercooled state, the controller is configured to determine based on a signal from the detector that freezing of the liquid in the supercooled state has started, and the controller is configured to start thawing the frozen liquid after a prescribed interval has elapsed from the start of the freezing of the liquid (see ‘120 patent claim 1). The ‘120 patent further discloses the controller is configured to repeatedly perform a set of processes a predetermined number of times, and the set of processes includes: causing the liquid to reach a supercooled state; freezing the liquid in the supercooled state; and starting a thawing of the frozen liquid after a prescribed interval has elapsed from the start of the freezing of the liquid (see ‘120 patent claim 10). Regarding the recitation “the controller is configured to determine a start of the freezing the liquid in the supercooled state for each set processes that are repeatedly executed and start the thawing of the frozen liquid,” as discussed above, the ‘120 patent claim 1 discloses the controller is configured to determine based on a signal from the detector that freezing of the liquid in the supercooled state has started, and the controller is configured to start thawing the frozen liquid after a prescribed interval has elapsed from the start of the freezing of the liquid and is understood as doing so at the start of each process.
As to claim 9, the ‘120 patent discloses the controller is configured to determine the start of the freezing of the liquid by using: at least one of a temperature of a film of the liquid detected by the detector, a thickness of the film of the liquid detected by the detector, or a surface state of the film of the liquid detected by the detector, or at least one of a temperature of a film of a mixture of the liquid and the frozen liquid detected by the detector, a thickness of the film of the mixture of the liquid and the frozen liquid detected by the detector, or a surface state of the film of the mixture of the liquid and the frozen liquid detected by the detector (see the ‘120 patent claim 2).
As to claim 10, the ‘120 patent discloses the detector is configured to detect a temperature of a surface of the liquid in the supercooled state at a prescribed time interval, and the controller is configured to determine that the freezing of the liquid has started when the temperature of the liquid increases, and a difference between one of the detected temperatures and the temperature detected directly before the one of the detected temperatures exceeds a prescribed threshold, and/or a rate of the temperature increase exceeds a prescribed threshold (see the ‘120 patent claim 3).
As to claim 15, the ‘120 patent discloses the prescribed interval is predetermined, and the prescribed interval is an interval from an instant at which the freezing of the liquid in the supercooled state starts until a temperature of a surface of the frozen liquid reaches a temperature of not less than 5° C. and not more than 10° C. greater than a temperature at which a crack occurs in the frozen liquid (see the ‘120 patent claim 1).
As to claim 16, the ‘120 patent discloses the detector is configured to detect a temperature of a surface of the frozen liquid, and the controller is configured to control at least one of the rotation of the substrate, a flow rate of the cooling gas, or a supply rate of the liquid to cause the liquid on the surface of the substrate to reach a supercooled state, the controller is configured to determine based on a signal from the detector that freezing of the liquid in the supercooled state has started, and the controller is configured to start to thaw the frozen liquid when the temperature detected by the detector reaches a temperature of not less than 5° C. and not more than 10° C. greater than a predetermined temperature at which a crack occurs in the frozen liquid (see the ‘120 patent claim 15).
As to claim 18, the ‘120 patent discloses the detector is at least one of a radiation thermometer, a thermo-viewer, a thermocouple, a resistance thermometer bulb, a laser displacement meter, an ultrasonic displacement meter, an optical sensor, or an image sensor (see the ‘120 patent claim 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
In the even that Applicant can overcome the double patenting rejections of claims 15 and 16 above (without altering the scope of the claims as understood by the Examiner), claims 15 and 16 would be 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not disclose that the prescribed interval is an interval from an instant at which the freezing of the liquid in the supercooled state starts until a temperature of a surface of the frozen liquid reaches a temperature of not less than 5 degrees C and not more than 10 degrees C greater than a temperature at which a crack occurs in the frozen liquid, or that even before the prescribed interval has elapsed, the controller starts to thaw the frozen liquid when the temperature detected by the detector reaches a temperature of not less than 5 degrees C and not more than 10 degrees C greater than a predetermined temperature at which a crack occurs in the frozen liquid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights