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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed July 16, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-12, 14-17 and 21 are canceled, and claims 13, 18-20, 22 and new claims 23-24 are pending for examination.
Specification
The objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter with regard to the antecedent basis for the SPM liquid as claimed and rinsing liquid is withdrawn, noting claim 11 of the provided Japan 2021-149973 priority document translation, and also noting claim 5 of the priority document translation, and the amendment of April 2, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the cancelation of claim 14.
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 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 13, 18-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeKraker et al (US 2008/0283090) in view of Saito et al (US 2011/0143550), Japan 2010-165825 (hereinafter ‘825), Wu et al (US 2020/0376636) and Okuyama et al (US 2005/0205115), and as evidenced by Yoshida (US 2014/0060573).
Claims 13, 23: As listed in the claim, there are now steps in sequence of (1) discharging only a rinsing fluid from a second nozzle to form a liquid film of the rinsing fluid on a surface of the substrate (where the rinsing liquid is a deionized water), (2) discharging, from a first nozzle, only a deionized water vapor/mist to the film of rinsing fluid formed on the substrate, (3) stopping discharging both the rinsing liquid and the deionized water in the vapor or mist state (indicating that both steps (1) and (2) are occurring during step (2)), (4) discharging only a processing liquid to a substrate wherein the liquid film of rinsing liquid is formed, from the first nozzle (where the processing liquid is an SPM liquid produced by mixing sulfuric acid and an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide consisting essentially of water and hydrogen peroxide), (5) discharging a mixed fluid, produced by mixing the processing liquid and a deionized water in a vapor state or a mist state thereof to a substrate where the processing liquid is discharged, from the first nozzle, and stopping discharging the mixed fluid where the supply of the deionized water in the vapor or mist state is stopped before the supply of processing liquid is stopped (6) discharging only an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide consisting essentially of water and hydrogen peroxide to the substrate after the discharging of the mixed fluid, and (7) discharging a deionized water to the substrate after the discharging the aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide.
DeKraker teaches a substrate processing method (for removing resist from a substrate, for example) (abstract), where the process includes discharging a processing liquid to a substrate and discharging water in a vapor state to the substrate where the processing liquid is discharged (note 0008, 0009, 0086, figure 3). DeKraker indicates that the processing liquid and water vapor can be provided for treatment by discharging a mixed fluid that is produced by mixing the processing liquid and a water in a vapor state to the substrate where the processing liquid is discharged (note figures 3-5, 0062-0065, 0069). DeKraker also indicates that during the process the processing liquid and vapor can be provided in various intermittent forms, including, for example, by continuously providing processing liquid and providing water vapor in discrete pulses, or vice versa, or pulsing water vapor at the same time as the processing liquid (including optionally in the processing liquid pulse) or between pulses (note 0069). In an Example, water vapor is provided to the substrate (preheating it) before a mixture of processing liquid and water vapor (note 0086). It is described that the water vapor (water in vapor state) can be discharged from the same nozzle (nozzle assembly, spray bar) as the processing liquid (figures 3-4, 0062). It is described that before dispensing the sulfuric acid composition (the processing liquid, note 0013), the wafer/substrate can be preferably heated to a temperature of at least about 90 degrees C, where the heating can be provided by introduction of hot water to the substrate (with substantial, or sufficient amount of water removed from the wafer/substrate prior to introduction of the sulfuric acid composition/processing liquid such that the composition maintains the desired level of sulfuric acid concentration) (note 0055), where heated water vapor can also be provided to heat the substrate (note 0058, 0060), where DeKraker notes that the water vapor from the nozzle system can be provided at temperatures above 90 degrees C, such as 131.2 degrees C (note 0085).
DeKraker describes the processing liquid as sulfuric acid solution, where the processing liquid can be SPM liquid with mixing sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide solution (note 0003-0004, 0011, 0043, since provided as a mixture, it is understood that the materials would be provided by mixing). Yoshida evidences that SPM liquid for removing resist is conventionally provided as a liquid mixture of sulfuric acid and a hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution (note 0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeKraker to specifically provide the SPM liquid is produced by mixing sulfuric acid and an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since DeKraker teaches use of SPM of mixing sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide material and Yoshida evidences the conventional makeup of SPM as providing the mixture of the sulfuric acid with hydrogen peroxide material as an aqueous solution. As to the aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide consisting essentially of water and hydrogen peroxide, as only water (aqueous) and hydrogen peroxide described as required it would be understood to be predictably and acceptably consist of such material, and as well, “consisting essentially of” would be treated as “comprising” for examination, note MPEP 2111.03(III), and the materials would be present as discussed above.
(A) Furthermore, as to the water being deionized water (DI water) to be vaporized, DeKraker notes using DI water in combination with sulfuric acid materials (note 0056) or DI water can be used to generate water vapor (0067), and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when providing the process of DeKraker it would have been obvious to use DI water to provide the water vapor with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as DeKraker indicates DI water would be a conventionally known water to use in contact with sulfuric acid material and when forming a water vapor.
(B) Furthermore, as to providing the sequence of steps as claimed, DeKraker indicates that there can be a pretreatment heating with liquid water/water vapor (as discussed above), and indicates the processing with SPM liquid/sulfuric acid solution and water vapor as discussed above, with various different patterns of providing of the water vapor and SPM liquid possible. The plurality of pulses of 0069, and example dispense times of 0086, indicate that one would optimize the dispense times, amounts and pulses to get the best results, which would result in a number of pulses to get the claimed number of actions. Furthermore as to discharging DI water after the hydrogen peroxide solution discharging (step (7)), DeKraker indicates to rinse with DI water after the processing, so discharging rinsing liquid to the substrate would be indicated (note 0086). Furthermore, as to using a first nozzle to discharge the processing liquid, mixed fluid, and water in a vapor state, DeKraker would provide this as the nozzle for the series of processing liquids (note figure 3, 4, spray bar 30 would have a first nozzle that provide the processing liquid and water vapor, 0062, 0051, 0085, 0086).
As to the specific sequence of steps, including steps (1)-(7), and the use of the second nozzle,
Saito describes a system for removing resist, for example (0029, 0045), where the process would include a step S2 of applying aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution (which is understood to be consisting essentially of water and hydrogen peroxide), and as well, step S2 can have the application of pure water applied as rinse liquid instead of the hydrogen peroxide solution, before applying an SPM solution step S3 and then applying aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution (which would be understood to be consisting essentially of water and hydrogen peroxide, as only water (aqueous) and hydrogen peroxide described as required, note 0048, 0057, and as well, “consisting essentially of” would be treated as “comprising” for examination, note MPEP 2111.03(III)) step S4 (as in step (6)) before further rinsing with water S5 (as in step (7)) (note figure 2, 0052-0059), where the aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution would be different from the SPM solution (without sulfuric acid, for example) (0036, 0052), and notes that the hydrogen peroxide solution helps cool the surface of the wafer from the high temperature from the SPM treatment and induces a reaction of unreacted sulfuric acid present of the wafer (for step S2 and S4) (0052, 0056, 0061), and where since water can be used instead of the hydrogen peroxide, and the water temperature can be 25 degrees C, it is understood that the water can also provide desired cooling (note 0061). Saito describes that the water can be provided from a separate nozzle (nozzle 6) that the nozzle 5 used for the processing solution (note 0061, 0054). Saito indicates that the step S2 is a rinsing that occurs after a first SPM treatment step S1 to remove resist (note 0049-0051, 0052, 0061).
Furthermore, ‘825 notes how it is known to supply a liquid in the form of water to a wafer substrate using a nozzle 15, and also supply water vapor/steam from another nozzle 51 directed so that the vapor is directed to the depositing water from nozzle 15 and also the substrate area where the liquid water has been deposited (that is, to the liquid film of applied liquid formed on the substate), where this raises the temperature of the liquid (note figures 2, 3, and translation pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeKraker as evidenced by Yoshida to further provide a step (1) discharging from a second nozzle only a rinsing liquid of water to form a liquid film of rinsing liquid on a surface of the substrate, and further the a step (2) discharging from a first nozzle only water in a vapor state to the liquid film of the rinsing liquid that is formed on the surface of the substrate, while during step (2), the step (1) water discharging continues, where the steps (1) and (2) occur before moving on to the sulfuric acid/SPM application features from the first nozzle from the teaching of DeKraker, and then further discharging application of aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution (rinsing liquid, consisting essentially of water and hydrogen peroxide) to the substrate (as in step (6)) and then water rinsing with discharging a deionized water to the substrate after the aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide (as in step (7)) as suggested by Saito and ‘825 with an expectation of providing a desirable resist removal and also later heating of the substrate as Saito would indicate the use of a conventional known pre and post treatment before sulfuric acid/SPM applications including rinsing with water which would apply a film of water to the substrate surface after a first SPM resist removal, where this would help cool the wafer from the high temperature from the SPM treatment, and thereafter DeKraker indicates that before the processing liquid application, a further heating with water can be provided where the water can be liquid or vapor, which heating would be understood to occur after the first cooling with the liquid water, since the heating needed before the processing liquid applied, and as shown by ‘825, liquid water can be applied to a substrate by one nozzle (the second nozzle here) and water vapor/steam applied from another nozzle (the first nozzle here) directed to the liquid film on the substrate from the first nozzle, where the addition of the water vapor heats the liquid, and thus by providing liquid water from a second nozzle as shown by Saito a first cooling rinsing can be provided, and by adding water vapor from the first nozzle of DeKraker, the water can be further heated on the substrate to also provide desired substrate heating as indicated by ‘825, where it would be suggested to use the first nozzle of DeKraker for the water vapor since DeKraker indicates that water vapor can be provided alone and then additional nozzles would not be needed, and additionally as to the post rinsing, with aqueous hydrogen peroxide as claimed after the discharge of mixed fluid, and then discharging the deionized water, this further allows desired surface cooling as indicated by Saito (step S4 of Saito), and then water rinsing would be suggested by Saito and DeKraker at the end (note step S5 of Saito), where the water rinsing would be suggested to use DI water from the teaching of DeKraker as discussed above, and furthermore, as to using DI water for the rinsing liquid in step (1), this would be suggested as predictably acceptable as a known water used for rinsing as indicated by DeKraker, and in step (2) DeKraker would suggest using DI water for the water vapor as discussed above. It would further have been obvious that a liquid film of the rinsing liquid would predictably and acceptably remain on a surface of the substrate after the steps (1) and (2) and going into step (4), since DeKraker indicates that some liquid can remain as discussed above.
Furthermore, as to the sulfuric acid/SPM application by providing the features of steps (3)-(5), it would have been obvious to provide after steps (1) and (2), as to further providing a step (4) treatment of thereafter discharging from the first nozzle only a processing liquid to the liquid film of the rinsing liquid and then a step (5) of discharging from the first nozzle a mixed fluid of the processing liquid and deionized water in a vapor state to the substrate where the processing liquid is discharged, these would be further suggested from optimizing the specific possible forms of application of the processing liquid and vapor from DeKraker as described at 0069, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results. and for example, for application of the processing liquid, it could be selected to at this point to therefore provide continuous application of processing liquid followed by a pulsed addition of water vapor (giving step (4) followed by step (5)), where the use of the first nozzle would be suggested as discussed for application of the two materials as discussed for DeKraker above. As to the supply of DI water in the vapor state stopping prior to the processing liquid when the discharging of a mixed fluid is ended, this would be described by 0069 of DeKraker, where when providing continuous sulfuric acid solution (processing solution) flow and pulsed water vapor, it would be either indicated that the water vapor flow would stop before the processing liquid flow (to allow sulfuric acid solution flow to continue after the pulse) or at least this would be suggested as an option to allow the pulsing to be controlled for the best pattern. Eventual stopping of both is needed to end the processing and move on to step (6). Additionally as to step (3), when providing the desired step (4) above, the step (3) features would need to be provided beforehand, so that only processing liquid discharged, since the rinsing liquid would not be needed after step (2) and the water vapor not discharged during step (4). Steps (6) and (7) would occur after step (5), since those are steps that occur after the sulfuric acid/SPM processing. Thus the sequence of steps claimed would be provided.
(C) Additionally, as to providing that the first nozzle is connected to a first supplier through a first supply route that provides the processing liquid and the first nozzle is connected to a second supplier through a second supply route for providing the DI water in a vapor/mist state, this would be suggested by DeKraker, which indicates that the first nozzle (which supplies water vapor and processing fluid) can be provided with a first supplier (note 22) with a first supply route (note 23) to supply the processing fluid and a second supplier (note 24) with a second supply route (note 25) to supply the water vapor to the nozzle (note figure 3, 0048). In DeKraker the water vapor can be called steam (note 0008).
Furthermore, as to in step (2) discharging only the DI water in a vapor state towards the liquid film, to discharge a water drop or water drops that remain on the second supply route to an outside thereof, with the second supply route supplying the DI water in the vapor state to the first nozzle, and as to in step (5) when stopping discharging both the rinsing liquid in the vapor state is executed after the discharging the water drop(s) that remain on the second supply route to the outside thereof (for claim 23), DeKraker notes now the water vapor can be provided at temperatures of preferably 100-150 degrees C at exposure to the wafer (note 0057). It is further noted that as worded, if there are no water drops, water drops do not need to be discharged.
Wu describes how water vapor (steam) can be supplied to semiconductor wafers through nozzles that are connected to supply routes to a supplier (note figures 2A, 2B, supplier 410, supply route 230, 0003, 0049, 0051, 0055), where the temperature of the steam can be 90-200 degrees C when generated (at boiler/supplier 410) and 90-150 degrees C when dispensed by the nozzles (note 0057), where it is indicated that the nozzles can have adjustable temperature, pressure and flow rate (note 0057), and can be provided with dry steam (substantially free of water droplets) to give superior heat transfer properties (note 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeKraker in view of Saito and ‘825, and further as evidenced by Yoshida to provide that the steam is generated as dry steam and be free of water droplets to exit the nozzle as dry steam as suggested by Wu in order to provide desirable heat transfer properties for the steam, since DeKraker indicates providing steam from a supplier and supply route to a nozzle at to give temperatures of 100-150 degrees C, and Wu teaches that when supplying steam from a supplier and supply route to a nozzle to give steam for use on a semiconductor substrate with steam at temperatures overlapping that of DeKraker, it is desirable to generate and use dry steam without water droplets for superior heat transfer, and by using such steam there would be no water droplets so no discharge of water droplets needed, and the requirements as to steps (2) and (5) met. While the combination of references as discussed above may suggest a different reason for providing a step (2) of vapor discharge this is not prevented. As well, if any water drops did form in the second supply route, the discharge would appear to remove to the outside any such drops as the pressure and flow to provide the vapor spray would also be suggested to carry along water and remove it to the outside of the supply route.
(D) Furthermore, as to rotating the substrate at a first rotational frequency at the discharge of a processing liquid (step (4) and a second lower frequency at the discharging of a mixed fluid (step 5), there can be considered sequential providing of the processing liquid and mixed fluid with the pulsing as described in DeKraker. DeKraker describes that the substrate can be rotated during application (0064). The process of DeKraker is to remove photoresist from the substrate (note 0002).
Okuyama describes applying resist stripping liquid to a substrate that is being rotated (abstract), where the resist stripping liquid can be SPM (sulfuric acid with hydrogen peroxide) (0044). It is described to apply the liquid while rotating the substrate at a first speed and then continuing supply of the liquid while reducing the rotational speed (abstract), which helps form a desired liquid film (0026), where the speeds are described as in rpm (rev/min, so revolutions per time period) (note 0023-0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeKraker in view of Saito, ‘825 and Wu, and further as evidenced by Yoshida to provide a first rotational frequency (revolutions/time period) when first applying the processing liquid and then when further applying the processing liquid (such as with the water vapor) to slow the rotational frequency to help form a desired film of the material as suggested by Okuyama, since DeKraker is applying processing liquid and processing liquid/water vapor to a rotating substrate for striping resist, and Okuyama indicates to apply the liquid while rotating the substrate at a first speed and then continuing supply of the liquid while reducing the rotational speed, which helps form a desired liquid film, and one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the time to change speeds for the overall application process as in DeKraker, where steps (4) and (5) both apply processing liquid, giving the slowing for the mixed fluid application.
Claim 18: DeKraker indicates that the mixed fluid can be produced by mixing the processing liquid (acid solution) and water vapor (which would be DI water vapor as discussed for claim 13 above) after being discharged from a nozzle and before reaching the substrate (note 0062, 0065, figures 3-4).
Claim 19: as to the mixed fluid applied to a center to peripheral part of the substrate, DeKraker notes that a spray bar can be used to cover from center to outer edge of the wafer (so from center to peripheral part) that applies the vapor and processing fluid which gives mixture (0062, figures 3-4) and would be simultaneously applied as shown in figure 3, where the spray bar can be considered a nozzle applicator (note 0062). As to the rinsing liquid applied to spread when contacting covers a center of the substrate, as discussed for claim 13 above, rinsing liquid would be suggested to be applied in step (1) and DeKraker shows how liquid (processing fluid) can be applied with a spray bar as discussed for the mixed fluid above, giving a suggested applicator system that would also be usable as the second nozzle for the rinsing fluid (such that a second spray bar could be provided), and when used the spray bar described above, would also cover the center when contacting the substrate. The wafer substrate is described as spinning/rotating and thus would be understood to spread the liquid (note 0064). Additionally, ‘825 notes applying liquid water from nozzle 15 to the center of a substate wafer (figure 2), showing conventional placement.
Claim 20: As to discharging the aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide to a middle part of the substrate and then moving the discharge position to the center of the substrate, Okuyama describes applying resist stripping liquid to a substrate that is being rotated (abstract), where the resist stripping liquid can be SPM (sulfuric acid with hydrogen peroxide) (0044). Okuyama describes how material can be discharged (here the SPM solution) from an edge peripheral position with a supply nozzle (discharge position) moved from an edge position to a center position at the center (figures 1, 3, 0050-0051), where the liquid is then applied at the center and rotation is given to quickly spread over the surface of the substrate (0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeKraker in view of Saito, ‘825, Wu and Okuyama, further as evidenced by Yoshida to provide discharge of the liquid from an edge position across the substrate to a center position (which would include moving across the middle portion to the center) when applying the aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide (in step (6)) as well as suggested by Okuyama to provide a desirable application of the liquid, giving desirable quick coverage, giving the desire the apply the hydrogen peroxide solution from Saito and the taught way to provide liquid coverage as described by Okuyama. Note that the claim does not prevent application starting from the edge as long as there is application from middle to center.
Claim 22, 24: DeKraker provides a holder that holds a substrate (note 14), a liquid discharger that discharges a fluid to the substrate that is held by the holder (note 20, 30), a first supplier that supplies a processing liquid to the liquid discharger connected by way of a first supply route (note 22, 23), a second supplier that supplies the water (which would be DI water as discussed for claim 13 above) in a vapor state to the liquid discharger connected by way of a second supply route (note 24, 25) (note figures 3, 4, 0046, 0048, 0062), and indicates providing control equipment to monitor and control features such as fluid flow (0064), and stopping discharging of the mixed fluid where the water vapor is stopped discharging before the processing fluid.
Furthermore, as to specific details, Saito describes a system for removing resist, for example (0029, 0045), where the system includes a holder for holding a substrate (note 3, 0029, figure 1), a liquid discharger for discharging a fluid to the substrate that is held by the holder (note 5, 6, figure 1, 0032), and a supplier that supplies processing liquid to the discharge unit (note 16, with reservoir units, such as 11, 14, valves such as 3, 10, note figure 1, 0032), and a controller 1 that controls each unit to discharge the processing liquid to the substrate from the discharge unit and discharges fluids, including mixed fluids from the discharger to the substrate (note figure 1, 16, 0038), and ‘825 would suggest the use of another liquid discharger (nozzle) for the rinsing liquid (deionized water, and different from the processing fluid, and where the processing liquid would be an SPM liquid that is produced by mixing sulfuric acid and an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide as discussed for claim 13 above). Wu would suggest the providing of dry steam, such that no water droplets remain on the second supply route, so no discharge needed, and Okuyama suggests the substrate rotational frequency as claimed, as discussed in the rejection of claims 13, 23 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeKraker, in view of Saito, ‘825, Wu and Okuyama, and as evidenced by Yoshida to use a controller and supplier features as described by Saito, ‘825, Wu and Okuyama with an expectation of predictably acceptable results as conventional features for resist removal apparatus as discussed above. The controller would be configured to provide the features of steps (1)-(7) in sequence, giving all features of claims 22 and 24 as claimed with using the device to provide the desired features of claims 13 and 23, where the controller would act to provide the discharge of materials in the claimed process as discussed for claim 13 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims including the new reference to Wu and use of Okuyama for claims 13 and 23.
(B) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, applicant argues that the cited art does not provide the features of the water droplet discharge. The Examiner notes that as worded, however, the discharge of water drops would only be required if water droplets present, and Wu has been cited as to the suggestion to use dry steam, so no water droplet would remain to need to be discharged. Water vapor can still be applied at a step (2) as discussed in the rejection above. Also, as discussed in the rejection above if any water drops did form in the second supply route, the discharge would appear to remove to the outside any such drops as the pressure and flow to provide the vapor spray would also be suggested to carry along water and remove it to the outside of the supply route
Applicant further argues that the cited art would not provide to stop discharging the mixed fluid where the supply of water vapor is stopped before the supply of processing liquid is stopped, where the pulsing water would not indicate that the processing liquid stopped prior to the processing liquid. The Examiner disagrees. The pulsing of water vapor would provide for the option for a mixed fluid that has the vapor stop and the processing liquid continue for a time and then this would also be stopped before step (6), since step (6) occurs after the vapor/processing liquid treatment is over.
Applicant further argues that the cited art does not provide for the second smaller rotational frequency during the mixed fluid application, with applicant indicating benefits of the change in frequency and Okuyama indicating applying one resist stripping fluid (processing fluid) at a first rotational speed followed by a smaller second rotational speed, but does not teach this for two different liquids, with a first rotational speed for one liquid and a second smaller rotational speed for the second liquid. The Examiner notes these arguments, however, the rejection above is maintained. While applicant indicates benefits of the first speed to form a film of processing liquid rapidly, and the second to increase duration of contact with the mixed fluid to remove resist, DeKraker and Okuyama are also removing resist. While there are two different liquid application steps from DeKraker of the processing fluid and then mixed vapor and processing fluid, the two steps are also both applying the processing fluid, so the suggestion of Okuyama of applying the processing fluid at a first rotational speed followed by a second slower rotational speed can also apply to the combination of steps (4) and (5) as processing liquid is being supplied throughout. This would give the benefits of Okuyama of forming the liquid over the entire substrate satisfactorily and is desirably maintained for reaction (note 0026), which seem to be the same benefits indicated by applicant. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718