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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-5, drawn to an apparatus, classified in CPC H10P 72/0414.
II. Claims 6-7, drawn to a method, classified in CPC B08B 3/10.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to clean the stage in the absence of a substrate. In the alternative, the method can be performed by an apparatus that does not contain a rotating stage.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Hyunseok Park on 7/16/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-5. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (JP 2007149972, machine translation referenced herein), and further in view of Dress et al. (US 2018/0243802).
Regarding Claim 1: Saito teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a stage (Figs. 1 and 5, element 2) configured to rotate a substrate placed on the stage;
a nozzle (element 14); and
a light source (element 15) configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to a raw material liquid flowing inside the nozzle.
Saito does not expressly disclose the nozzle extending along a surface of the substrate. However, Dress teaches a nozzle (Fig. 1, element 14) for treating a substrate with an irradiated liquid, the nozzle having a length to extend along a surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1) in order to apply the liquid over the entire substrate [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Saito with a nozzle extending along a surface of the substrate in order to apply the liquid over the entire substrate, as taught by Dress.
Regarding Claim 2: Saito and Dress teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Saito does not expressly disclose the nozzle has a plate shape and the flow path having a curved shape. However, Dress further teaches that the nozzle has a plate shape, and includes: one flow path providing inside the nozzle, having a curved shape (see Fig. 2, between elements 22 and 23), and configured to flow the liquid inside the flow path; and a plurality of discharge ports (elements 16) arranged side by side along a direction in which the nozzle extends, each of the plurality of discharge ports having one end portion opened on a surface of the nozzle facing the surface of the substrate (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3: Saito and Dress teach the elements of Claim 2 as discussed above. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The device of Saito and Dress is fully capable of generating the claimed processing liquid and supply the generated processing liquid to the substrate surface as claimed (see Saito, pg. 5, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4: Saito and Dress teach the elements of Claim 2 as discussed above. Dress further teaches that the light source is provided on the nozzle on a side opposite to a side in which the plurality of discharge ports is opened (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 5: Saito and Dress teach the elements of Claim 2 as discussed above. Dress further teaches that the plurality of discharge ports is in communication with the flow path provided approximately at a center of the nozzle in a direction intersecting the direction in which the nozzle extends (see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamamoto (JP 2004241726) teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising a nozzle including an ultraviolet radiation source (see abstract and Figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights