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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-10, 18, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohura et al. (US 2023/0154794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohura discloses a method of inhibiting evaporation of a formable material on a substrate (a method is considered as inhibiting evaporation if there exists a different method which would have more evaporation; as there exists a method which has more evaporation than the method of Ohura (e.g., a method comprising all of the steps of the method of Ohura with an additional step of intentionally evaporating extra material), the method of Ohura is considered as “inhibiting evaporation”), the method comprising:
holding the substrate (“wafer 11”, ¶ 0027) with a substrate chuck (“spinner table 18”, ¶ 0032), the substrate chuck being portioned within a central opening of a frame (“receptacle 24” including “coating unit 30”, ¶ 0035) such that the frame surrounds at least a portion of the substrate chuck (see Fig. 5);
supply a liquid material (“liquid protective film agent 23”, ¶ 0035) to a portion of the frame (“coating unit 30”, ¶ 0035) configured to receive and retain the liquid material (“The liquid protective film agent supply source includes a tank, not depicted, storing the liquid protective film agent 23 therein and a pump, not depicted, for sending the liquid protective film agent 23 from the tank through the fluid channel in the first arm 34 to the first nozzle 32”, ¶ 0036), wherein the liquid material is selected from the group consisting of the formable material and a volatile material different from the formable material (it being the formable material, (“liquid protective film agent 23”, ¶ 0035)); and
dispensing the formable material on the substrate (see Fig. 5).
Ohura does not disclose the surface area of the portion of the frame supplied with liquid material to the surface area of the frame to determine if it falls within the claimed range. However, the portion of the frame is designed to apply the liquid material to a substrate held within the remainder of the frame. The relative surface area of the portion of the frame is a result effective variable for this purpose as if the relative surface area is too low, the portion of the frame will not be tall enough to coat the entirety of the substrate. If the relative surface area is too high then the frame will not be large enough to fit the substrate. As such, the Ohura discloses the general conditions of the claim adjusting the relative surface area amounts to discovering the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Ohura further discloses wherein the supplying the liquid material is performed prior to dispensing of the formable material (¶ 0035, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Ohura further discloses the liquid material may be volatile material (“solvent of pure water”, ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 8, Ohura further discloses a volatile material that is not photocurable (“solvent of pure water”, ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 9, Ohura further discloses wherein the volatile material does not include a photoinitiator (“solvent of pure water”, ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 10, Ohura further discloses wherein the formable material comprises volatile components (“solvent of pure water”, ¶ 0036), and
wherein the volatile material comprises the same volatile components as the formable material (“solvent of pure water”, ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 18, Ohura further discloses wherein the supplying the liquid material to the portion of the frame configured to receive and retain the liquid material comprising circulating the liquid material through a channel (“first arm 34”, ¶ 0038) formed in the frame.
Regarding claim 22, Ohura does not disclose the ratio of a radial width of the portion of the frame supplied with liquid material to the diameter of the substrate chuck to determine if it falls within the claimed range. However, the portion of the frame is designed to apply the liquid material to a substrate held by the substrate chuck. The ratio of a radial width of the portion of the frame supplied with liquid material to the diameter of the substrate chuck is a result effective variable for this purpose as if the ratio is too low, the portion of the frame will not be large enough to coat the entirety of the substrate in a timely manner. If the ratio is too high then the substrate chuck will not be large enough to hold the substrate. As such, the Ohura discloses the general conditions of the claim adjusting the ratio of a radial width of the portion of the frame supplied with liquid material to the diameter of the substrate chuck amounts to discovering the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 23, Ohura further discloses wherein during the supplying of the liquid to the portion of the frame the liquid is supplied without the liquid contacting the substrate (during the supplying of the liquid to the portion of the frame, the liquid has not yet been dispensed and, as such, does not contact the substrate).
Regarding claim 24, Ohura further discloses wherein during the dispensing of the formable material on the substrate, the formable material is dispensed without contacting the frame (the liquid that is dispensed onto the substrate no longer contacts the frame).
Regarding claim 25, Ohura further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the frame is adjacent to an outer diameter of the substrate (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 26, Ohura further discloses wherein the portion of the frame supplied with the liquid is adjacent an outer diameter of the substrate (see Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohura et al. (US 2023/0154794 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Takamura (US 7,365,828 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Ohura does not disclose wherein the supplying of the liquid material to the portion of the frame configured to receive and retain the liquid comprises providing a porous pad containing the liquid material into a channel formed in the frame.
Takamura, in the same field of endeavor, discloses providing a porous pad (“porous ceramic 34", Fig. 7) in the supply channel. There was a benefit to using a porous pad as such in that blocks debris larger than the pore size. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to include a porous pad as taught by Takamura in a channel formed in the frame of Ohura such that the supplying of the liquid material to the portion of the frame configured to receive and retain the liquid material comprises providing a porous pad containing the liquid material into a channel formed in the frame for this benefit.
Regarding claim 16, Takamura does not disclose after passing a predetermined threshold, replacing the porous pad with another porous pad containing the liquid material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to replace the porous pad with another porous pad after passing a predetermined threshold (e.g., an amount of wear and tear on the original porous pad) for the benefit of maintaining equipment in optimum working order. Upon replacing the porous pad with a new porous pad, the liquid material will pass through the new porous pad and, as such, the original porous pad will be replaced with another porous pad containing the liquid material.
Regarding claim 17, Ohura further discloses wherein the supplying of the liquid material to the portion of the frame configured to receive and retain the liquid material further comprises accelerating evaporation of the liquid material using an evaporation accelerator (i.e., the motor which spins the wafer; this is considered to be an “evaporation accelerator” as the evaporation will occur at a higher rate when the material is spinning). In the method of the combination, the spinner is below the supply nozzle and, as such, the evaporation accelerator will be disposed underneath the porous pad.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohura et al. (US 2023/0154794 A1) in view of Tada et al. (US 2015/0268560 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Ohura disclose a method of manufacturing an article, comprising:
holding a substrate (“wafer 11”, ¶ 0027) with a substrate chuck (“spinner table 18”, ¶ 0032 the substrate chuck being portioned within a central opening of a frame (“receptacle 24” including “coating unit 30”, ¶ 0035) such that the frame surrounds at least a portion of the substrate chuck (see Fig. 5);
supply a liquid material (“liquid protective film agent 23”, ¶ 0035) to a portion of the frame (“coating unit 30”, ¶ 0035) configured to receive and retain the liquid material (“The liquid protective film agent supply source includes a tank, not depicted, storing the liquid protective film agent 23 therein and a pump, not depicted, for sending the liquid protective film agent 23 from the tank through the fluid channel in the first arm 34 to the first nozzle 32”, ¶ 0036), wherein the liquid material is selected from the group consisting of the formable material and a volatile material different from the formable material (it being the formable material, (“liquid protective film agent 23”, ¶ 0035)); and
dispensing the formable material on the substrate (see Fig. 5);
forming a pattern or a layer of the dispensed formable material on the substrate (“spread radially outwardly over the face side”, ¶ 0060); and
processing the pattern or layer to make the article (“cutting step”, ¶ 0080).
Ohura does not disclose curing the formed pattern or layer.
Tada, in the same field of endeavor, discloses curing a formed pattern or layer (“photo-curing method”, ¶ 0034). There was a benefit to using a curing step in that it quickly hardens the deposited material in the desired form, reducing processing time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use a curing step as taught by Tada in the method of Ohura for this benefit.
Ohura does not disclose the surface area of the portion of the frame supplied with liquid material to the surface area of the frame to determine if it falls within the claimed range. However, the portion of the frame is designed to apply the liquid material to a substrate held within the remainder of the frame. The relative surface area of the portion of the frame is a result effective variable for this purpose as if the relative surface area is too low, the portion of the frame will not be tall enough to coat the entirety of the substrate. If the relative surface area is too high then the frame will not be large enough to fit the substrate. As such, the Ohura discloses the general conditions of the claim adjusting the relative surface area amounts to discovering the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive as Ohura does not explicitly disclose the newly added limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the obvious application of Ohura as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights