DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on July 16, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on April 13, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the lined-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
In addition, the examiner notes that the May 1, 2025, IDS lists three US Patent documents, but their corresponding identification numbers are inaccurate. None of these references has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner will interpret the recitation of a “controller for controlling a series of processings” in the penultimate paragraph of claim 1 as a mechanical control device which can be manipulated at the discretion of the operator. If, instead, Applicant seeks to codify something like a programmable processing unit, the examiner suggests reciting this capacity explicitly while substituting language such as programmed to control or configured to control in place of “for controlling.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for grammatical reasons, as the sixth paragraph refers to a “processing reducing pump.” In view of the disclosure, the examiner believes the proper title is pressure reducing pump.
Separately, the seventh paragraph invokes a water repellent supplying means “including ejection port [sic] for supplying...” The examiner believes an article, like an, ought to precede “ejection port.”
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This claim specifies that “the exhaust port also allows a liquid held in the processing tank to pass therethrough.” It is unclear to what port the claim refers in this case, as the exhaust port (42) of claim 2 is only operable when the liquid has been drained from the processing tank (Figs. 4b, 5a). The disclosure does not contemplate a scenario in which the port (42) of the pressure-reducing means (40) receives a liquid. To promote compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the contested limitation as designating the drain port (52) of the drain unit (50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyajima et al., US 2022/0037173.
Claim 1: Miyajima discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
A sealable chamber (51) (Fig. 2);
A processing tank (53) disposed in the chamber, capable of storing a cleaning liquid, and having an open upper portion (53a) [0056];
A lifter (55B) that holds a plurality of substrates, and that moves up and down between an internal position in the processing tank and a position above the tank [0059];
A draining means (450) including a processing tank drain port (50) for draining the cleaning liquid stored in the tank [0058];
A processing tank pressure-reducing means (600) for evacuating the chamber and reducing a pressure in the processing tank via a pressure reducing pump [0070];
Water repellent supplying means including an ejection port (63) for supply a water repellent to substrates at the position above the processing tank [0071];
A controller (100) for controlling a series of processes for the plurality of substrates [0050].
Regarding the control sequence elaborated by the claim’s final paragraph, the operator can avail Miyajima’s system controller (100) to regulate the supply of water repellent via its supply section (700) while both draining the processing tank and activating the pump of the pressure-reducing means, since it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Claim 4: Miyajima provides an ejection port (61) for supplying an organic solvent vapor into the chamber [0067].
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 of this title, 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 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyajima in view of Tsurusaki et al., US 2022/0105535.
Claims 2, 5: The exhaust portion of Miyajima’s pressure-reducing means is not “formed in the processing tank,” as claim 2 requires. In supplementation, Tsurusaki discloses a processing tank comprising a draining means (30) yet, in addition, the reference provides a means (63) of selectively evacuating a gas from the tank volume ([0068-69]; Fig. 9). This means includes an exhaust port (62) formed in the processing tank and a piping having an open end connected to said exhaust port, whereby this arrangement prevents an “increase in the pressure inside the processing tank” [0069]. As Miyajima also seeks to regulate the pressure environment of the processing tank, it would have been obvious to incorporate a pressure-reducing means within the processing tank to promote this objective. In certain embodiments, Tsurusaki’s exhaust ports “may not be connected to a…vacuum pump,” but the examiner observes that Miyajima has already established the suitability of using a suction device to promote the outflow of a fluid, and it would have been obvious to avail this technique since choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 3: As shown by Figure 9 of Tsurusaki, the exhaust port (62) is formed on the bottom of the chamber.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Campion et al., US 2012/0047764. Campion discloses a processing tank (110) that stores a cleaning liquid for cleaning a batch of substrates (137) (Fig. 1). The system further includes a draining means (124) and a pressure-reducing means (134) for gas evacuation [0025].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights