DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In lines 29-31 of claim 1, applicant recites that “in a first instance of the determining where the substrate treating liquid is determined to be free of the contaminants, continuing performance of the semiconductor device manufacturing process”, and this limitation is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure. Applicant cites paragraphs [0003]-[0007], [0048], [0090]-[0102], and [0111]-[0112] of the published application (US 2022/0355344) as providing support for applicant’s claim amendments. The examiner has reviewed those paragraphs (and the rest of the specification) and can’t find support for this language.
In lines 31-33 of claim 16, applicant recites that “in a first instance of the determining where the substrate treating liquid is determined to be free of the contaminants, continuing performance of the semiconductor device manufacturing process”, and this limitation is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure. Applicant cites paragraphs [0003]-[0007], [0048], [0090]-[0102], and [0111]-[0112] of the published application (US 2022/0355344) as providing support for applicant’s claim amendments. The examiner has reviewed those paragraphs (and the rest of the specification) and can’t find support for this language.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “intentionally” in line 16 of claim 1 is a term that creates uncertainty. A person reading claim 1 would potentially be confused about how to determine if something is being performed “intentionally” or not. How is one supposed to know if intentionality is present in a method or not? Since intentionality depends on a conscious mental state of a first human, it is not a straightforward matter for a second human to know if a method step is performed “intentionally” or not. Additionally, lines 29-30 recite that the liquid may be determined to be “free of the contaminants”; in the situation where the liquid is “free of the contaminants”, it is not clear how one could intentionally increase a number of the contaminants within the substrate treating liquid that will be absorbed onto the surface of the substrate, as specified in lines 16-18 of claim 1.
The term “intentionally” in line 16 of claim 16 is a term that creates uncertainty. A person reading claim 16 would potentially be confused about how to determine if something is being performed “intentionally” or not. How is one supposed to know if intentionality is present in a method or not? Since intentionality depends on a conscious mental state of a first human, it is not a straightforward matter for a second human to know if a method step is performed by the first human “intentionally” or not. Additionally, lines 31-32 recite that the liquid may be determined to be “free of the contaminants”; in the situation where the liquid is “free of the contaminants”, it is not clear how one could intentionally increase a number of the contaminants within the substrate treating liquid that will be absorbed onto the surface of the substrate, as specified in lines 16-18 of claim 16.
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, 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, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0261570 by Orii in view of U.S. 2005/0227363 by Hwang in view of U.S. 2020/0164294 by Kamimura in view of U.S. 2005/0016929 to Kashkoush.
With regard to claim 1, Orii teaches a method of treating a semiconductor wafer (reads on substrate), wherein the treating comprises cleaning, rinsing, and drying a substrate while the wafer is rotated (Abstract; Par. 0036-0039, 0044-0049, and 0056-0059). Orii’s method comprises a step of ejecting rinse water (reads on substrate treating liquid) onto the wafer from a nozzle while the wafer rotates at a constant speed (hereafter called the “first speed”, to match applicant’s language choice) in the range of “about 200 to 400 rpm” (Par. 0049) for a predetermined time, and when the ejecting of the rinse water has been finished, performing a drying step (reads on applicant’s drying) that involves rotating the wafer at a speed (hereafter called the “second speed”, to match applicant’s language choice) in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” while ejecting drying liquid (isopropyl alcohol, also known as “IPA”) onto the substrate such that the water is replaced by the drying liquid (Par. 0049, 0053, and 0057).
As discussed, Orii teaches that the first speed (during the rinsing) is in the range of “about 200 to 400 rpm” (Par. 0049), and Orii teaches that the second speed (during the drying) is in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” (Par. 0057). Orii does not recite having the first speed equal to the second speed. However, there is substantial overlap of the ranges of “about 200 to 400 rpm” and “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm”, and 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 method of Orii such that the first and second speeds are selected to be a single speed that falls within the overlap of the ranges of “about 200 to 400 rpm” and “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm”. Motivation for picking such same speed for the first and second speeds was provided by Orii teaching that speed values in those recited ranges can successfully be used to perform the respective rinsing and drying steps.
Orii does not explicitly teach that the second speed is constant during the drying step (discussed in Par. 0057) of discharging isopropyl alcohol onto the wafer rotating at “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm”. However, Orii also doesn’t teach varying the second speed during that drying step; Orii is simply silent on whether constant speed or varying speed is occurring. Since Orii is silent on the matter, and since Orii teaches that a wafer rotation speed in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” can successfully be used during execution of that drying step, 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 method of Orii such that the second speed is constant during the drying step (the step discussed in Par. 0057) of supplying IPA to the rotating wafer because Orii teaches that a speed in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” can successfully be used during execution of that drying step and because Orii doesn’t suggest varying the speed during that step. In this developed method of Orii, the wafer is rotated at a constant second speed while the drying step of Par. 0057 is performed, and the second speed thus remains constant during the drying step of Par. 0057. The drying step of Par. 0057 occurs while the wafer is being dried.
Orii does not teach a step of inspecting the surface of the substrate for metal ions.
Hwang teaches that rinse liquid can potentially be undesirably contaminated with metal contaminants (Abstract; Par. 0027, 0028, and 0046).
Kamimura teaches that the amount of metal contaminants deposited on a substrate by a treatment liquid can be determined by treating the substate with the treatment liquid, drying the substrate, and then using a substrate inspection apparatus to count the number of metal contaminants deposited on the substrate by the treatment liquid (Par. 0317 and 0318).
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 method of Orii such that, after the substrate is dried, a substrate inspection apparatus is used to count any metal contaminants that may have been deposited by the rinsing water onto the substrate (thus indicating that the rinsing water is contaminated). Hwang teaches that rinse liquid can potentially be undesirably contaminated with metal contaminants, and Kamimura teaches that the amount of metal contaminants deposited on a substrate by a treatment liquid can be determined by treating the substate with the treatment liquid, drying the substrate, and then using a substrate inspection apparatus to count the number of metal contaminants deposited on the substrate by the treatment liquid. The motivation for performing the modification would be to check that the rinse liquid is not getting the substrate undesirably contaminated.
To match applicant’s claim language, in the developed combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura, the predetermined time for which the rinse step is performed is considered to increase a residence time of the rinse water on the substrate because the residence time is thus longer than it would be if that rinse step were performed for a shorter prior of time. Similarly, the residence time of the rinse water in that rinse step is considered to intentionally increase a number of metal contaminants that can be deposited onto the water by contaminated rinse water relative to a shorter residence time because the shorter residence time would provide fewer opportunities for contaminants entrained in the rinse water to reach the wafer and get deposited thereon. The developed method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura does not recite first inspecting the rinse liquid prior to the start of the substrate cleaning process, and the developed method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura does not recite treating the rinse liquid for the contaminants prior to a start of the substrate cleaning process.
The combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura does not teach that, when the rinse liquid is determined to be contaminated, a process operator is notified that the rinse liquid contains contaminants.
Kashkoush teaches that when a substrate processing liquid is determined to be contaminated to an unacceptable extent, an alert can be issued to a user such that the user is made aware that the processing liquid is undesirably contaminated (Abstract; Par. 0019, 0020, and 0024).
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 method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura such that, when the rinse liquid is determined to be contaminated to an unacceptable extent (via the substrate inspection apparatus discussed earlier), an alert is issued to a process operator such that the process operator can be informed of the unacceptable level of contamination. In this method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the processing of more substates is continued in a continuous, uninterrupted manner without alerting the process operator when the level of contamination is not considered unacceptable, including the situation wherein no contaminants are determined to be in the rinse liquid. Motivation for alerting the user when the rinse liquid was contaminated to unacceptable extent was provided by Kashkoush, who teaches that when a substrate processing liquid is determined to be contaminated to an unacceptable extent, an alert can be issued to a user such that the user is made aware that the processing liquid is undesirably contaminated. Motivation for having the method process more substrates in a continuous, uninterrupted manner without alerting the process operator when the rinse liquid is not contaminated to an unacceptable extent would be to keep processing substrates such that more substrates can be cleaned by the cleaning method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush.
With regard to claim 5, in the method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the first speed is lower than a reference speed, wherein the reference speed is a rotation speed of the wafer during the cleaning of the substrate (Par. 0047 of Orii).
With regard to claim 6, in the method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the substrate is considered to be treated during the cleaning of the substrate discussed in Par. 0047 of Orii.
With regard to claim 10, in the method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the ejecting of the rinse water is performed simultaneously with the rotating of the wafer at the first speed (Par. 0049 and 0050 of Orii).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, as developed thus far, does not recite that the first speed of the wafer rotation is 200 rpm. However, Orii teaches that a first speed of “about 200 to 400 rpm” (Par. 0049 of Orii) can successfully be used as the rotation speed in the rinsing step. 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 method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush such that the first speed is 200 rpm, as Orii teaches that 200 rpm is a wafer rotation speed that can successfully be used in the performance of the wafer rinsing step.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0261570 by Orii in view of U.S. 2005/0227363 by Hwang in view of U.S. 2020/0164294 by Kamimura in view of U.S. 2005/0016929 to Kashkoush as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2008/0314870 by Inoue.
With regard to claim 4, in the method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the wafer is rotated at the first speed while the rinse water is supplied to the wafer, but the combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush does not recite that the first speed is a speed that prevents rinse water from being bounced off the substrate. However, Inoue teaches that when supplying water to a rotating wafer, the speed of rotation is a result-effective variable that affects whether the wafer is rotating fast enough to successfully remove the used water from the wafer (due to the centrifugal force causing the water to flow off the top of the rotating wafer) and slow enough such that water does not get scattered from the wafer with such a force that it might splash off a surrounding surface and undesirably return (as already-used water) to the cleaned surface of the wafer (Abstract; Par. 0019, 0020, 0028, and 0048). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush such that the first rotation speed is optimized to avoid having used rinse water potentially flung from the surface with such a force that already-used (and thus potentially contaminated) rinse water splashes off a surrounding surface and undesirably returns to the wafer, and wherein the optimized first speed still is still fast enough to allow the rinse water to successfully flow off the rotating wafer due to centrifugal force. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by Inoue, who teaches that when supplying water to a rotating wafer, the speed of rotation is a result-effective variable that affects whether the wafer is rotating fast enough to successfully remove the used water from the wafer (due to the centrifugal force causing the water to flow off the top of the rotating wafer) and slow enough such that water does not get scattered from the wafer with such a force that it might splash off a surrounding surface and undesirably return (as already-used water) to the cleaned surface of the wafer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0261570 by Orii in view of U.S. 2005/0227363 by Hwang in view of U.S. 2020/0164294 by Kamimura in view of U.S. 2005/0016929 to Kashkoush as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 6,234,692 to Shin.
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush does not teach that the first speed varies depending on viscosity of the rinse water.
Shin teaches that when supplying treatment liquid onto a rotating substrate such that the treatment liquid is removed from the substrate (due to centrifugal force), the already-used treatment liquid may undesirably be flung with such force that it bounces off a nearby surface and undesirably returns to the substrate, and Shin teaches that rotation speed and the viscosity of the treatment liquid are variables that affect whether this undesired bouncing-back occurs (Col. 1, lines 14-64).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush such that the first speed is optimized depending on the temperature of the rinse water. It is well known that the viscosity of water depends on its temperature, and motivation for optimizing was provided by Shin, who teaches that when supplying treatment liquid onto a rotating substrate such that the treatment liquid is removed from the substrate (due to centrifugal force), rotation speed and viscosity are result-effective variables that affect whether or not the already-used treatment liquid undesirably bounces back onto the substrate or not.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0261570 by Orii in view of U.S. 2005/0227363 by Hwang in view of U.S. 2020/0164294 by Kamimura in view of U.S. 2005/0016929 to Kashkoush in view of U.S. 2008/0314870 by Inoue.
With regard to claim 16, Orii teaches a method of treating a semiconductor wafer (reads on substrate), wherein the treating comprises cleaning, rinsing, and drying a substrate while the wafer is rotated (Abstract; Par. 0036-0039, 0044-0049, and 0056-0059). Orii’s method comprises a step of ejecting rinse water (reads on substrate treating liquid) onto the wafer from a nozzle while the wafer rotates at a constant speed (hereafter called the “first speed”, to match applicant’s language choice) in the range of “about 200 to 400 rpm” (Par. 0049) for a predetermined time, and when the ejecting of the rinse water has been finished, performing a drying step (reads on applicant’s drying) that involves rotating the wafer at a speed (hereafter called the “second speed”, to match applicant’s language choice) in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” while ejecting drying liquid (isopropyl alcohol, also known as “IPA”) onto the substrate such that the water is replaced by the drying liquid (Par. 0049, 0053, and 0057).
As discussed, Orii teaches that the first speed (during the rinsing) is in the range of “about 200 to 400 rpm” (Par. 0049), and Orii teaches that the second speed (during the drying) is in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” (Par. 0057). Orii does not recite having the first speed equal to the second speed. However, there is substantial overlap of the ranges of “about 200 to 400 rpm” and “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm”, and 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 method of Orii such that the first and second speeds are selected to be a single speed that falls within the overlap of the ranges of “about 200 to 400 rpm” and “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm”. Motivation for picking such same speed for the first and second speeds was provided by Orii teaching that speed values in those recited ranges can successfully be used to perform the respective rinsing and drying steps.
Orii does not explicitly teach that the second speed is constant during the drying step (discussed in Par. 0057) of discharging isopropyl alcohol onto the wafer rotating at “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm”. However, Orii also doesn’t teach varying the second speed during that drying step; Orii is simply silent on whether constant speed or varying speed is occurring. Since Orii is silent on the matter, and since Orii teaches that a wafer rotation speed in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” can successfully be used during execution of that drying step, 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 method of Orii such that the second speed is constant during the drying step (the step discussed in Par. 0057) of supplying IPA to the rotating wafer because Orii teaches that a speed in the range of “about 100 rpm to 500 rpm” can successfully be used during execution of that drying step and because Orii doesn’t suggest varying the speed during that step. In this developed method of Orii, the wafer is rotated at a constant second speed while the drying step of Par. 0057 is performed, and the second speed thus remains constant during the drying step of Par. 0057. The drying step of Par. 0057 occurs while the wafer is being dried.
Orii does not teach a step of inspecting the surface of the substrate for metal ions.
Hwang teaches that rinse liquid can potentially be undesirably contaminated with metal contaminants (Abstract; Par. 0027, 0028, and 0046).
Kamimura teaches that the amount of metal contaminants deposited on a substrate by a treatment liquid can be determined by treating the substate with the treatment liquid, drying the substrate, and then using a substrate inspection apparatus to count the number of metal contaminants deposited on the substrate by the treatment liquid (Par. 0317 and 0318).
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 method of Orii such that, after the substrate is dried, a substrate inspection apparatus is used to count any metal contaminants that may have been deposited by the rinsing water onto the substrate (thus indicating that the rinsing water is contaminated). Hwang teaches that rinse liquid can potentially be undesirably contaminated with metal contaminants, and Kamimura teaches that the amount of metal contaminants deposited on a substrate by a treatment liquid can be determined by treating the substate with the treatment liquid, drying the substrate, and then using a substrate inspection apparatus to count the number of metal contaminants deposited on the substrate by the treatment liquid. The motivation for performing the modification would be to check that the rinse liquid is not getting the substrate undesirably contaminated.
To match applicant’s claim language, in the developed combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura, the predetermined time for which the rinse step is performed is considered to increase a residence time of the rinse water on the substrate because the residence time is thus longer than it would be if that rinse step were performed for a shorter prior of time. Similarly, the residence time of the rinse water in that rinse step is considered to intentionally increase a number of metal contaminants that can be deposited onto the water by contaminated rinse water relative to a shorter residence time because the shorter residence time would provide fewer opportunities for contaminants entrained in the rinse water to reach the wafer and get deposited thereon. The developed method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura does not recite first inspecting the rinse liquid prior to the start of the substrate cleaning process, and the developed method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura does not recite treating the rinse liquid for the contaminants prior to a start of the substrate cleaning process.
The combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura does not teach that, when the rinse liquid is determined to be contaminated, a process operator is notified that the rinse liquid contains contaminants.
Kashkoush teaches that when a substrate processing liquid is determined to be contaminated to an unacceptable extent, an alert can be issued to a user such that the user is made aware that the processing liquid is undesirably contaminated (Abstract; Par. 0019, 0020, and 0024).
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 method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura such that, when the rinse liquid is determined to be contaminated to an unacceptable extent (via the substrate inspection apparatus discussed earlier), an alert is issued to a process operator such that the process operator can be informed of the unacceptable level of contamination. In this method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the processing of more substates is continued in a continuous, uninterrupted manner without alerting the process operator when the level of contamination is not considered unacceptable, including the situation wherein no contaminants are determined to be in the rinse liquid. Motivation for alerting the user when the rinse liquid was contaminated to unacceptable extent was provided by Kashkoush, who teaches that when a substrate processing liquid is determined to be contaminated to an unacceptable extent, an alert can be issued to a user such that the user is made aware that the processing liquid is undesirably contaminated. Motivation for having the method process more substrates in a continuous, uninterrupted manner without alerting the process operator when the rinse liquid is not contaminated to an unacceptable extent would be to keep processing substrates such that more substrates can be cleaned by the cleaning method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush.
In the method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, the wafer is rotated at the first speed and the second speed while liquid (rinse liquid and then drying liquid, respectively) is supplied to the wafer, but the combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush does not recite that the first speed and second speed are a speed that prevents liquid from being bounced off the substrate. However, Inoue teaches that when supplying liquid to a rotating wafer, the speed of rotation is a result-effective variable that affects whether the wafer is rotating fast enough to successfully move the liquid across the wafer (due to the centrifugal force causing the liquid to flow over the wafer) and slow enough such that liquid does not get scattered from the wafer with such a force that it might splash off a surrounding surface and undesirably return (as already-used liquid) to the cleaned surface of the wafer (Abstract; Par. 0019, 0020, 0028, and 0048). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush such that the value of the first speed and second speed is optimized to avoid having used liquid potentially flung from the surface with such a force that already-used (and thus potentially contaminated) liquid splashes off a surrounding surface and undesirably returns to the wafer, and wherein the optimized value of the first speed and second speed is still fast enough to allow the liquid to successfully flow over the wafer due to centrifugal force. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by Inoue, who teaches that when supplying liquid to a rotating wafer, the speed of rotation is a result-effective variable that affects whether the wafer is rotating fast enough to successfully move the liquid across the wafer (due to the centrifugal force causing the liquid to flow over the wafer) and slow enough such that liquid does not get scattered from the wafer with such a force that it might splash off a surrounding surface and undesirably return (as already-used liquid) to the cleaned surface of the wafer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s cited prior art is “in direct contrast to at least ‘the contaminants comprise metal ions and originate from a source different and separate from the substrate’”. This is not persuasive. In the examiner’s combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, for example, the inspection is performed (using a substate inspection apparatus) to determine if the rinse liquid deposited contaminants onto the substrate, thus meaning that the contaminants originated from some source different and separate from the substrate.
Applicant states out that “Hwang…teaches that a rinsing solution bath that contains the rinsing liquid is analyzed to identify contaminants that are left from substrate that have been cleaned using and removed from the rinsing solution bath”. Firstly, it is noted that if a rinse solution used to rinse a first substrate had previously been contaminated from past substrates, contaminants in the rinse solution supplied towards the first substrate would not have originated with the first substrate but with said past substrates. Secondly and most importantly, it is noted that the examiner’s combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, for example, does not specify that the rinse liquid was previously used to rinse the substrate that is currently being rinsed, nor that the rinse liquid was used to rinse previous substates. Hwang is simply used to teach that rinse liquid can potentially be undesirably contaminated with metal contaminants. Thirdly, it is noted that applicant’s own claim language leaves open the possibility that the liquid is “free of the contaminants” (see line 30 of claim 1, for example); thus, applicant is not actually positively reciting the presence of contaminants comprising metal ions and originating from a source different and separate from the substrate. Such contaminants do not actually need to be present in order to perform the method of claim 1 or claim 16.
Applicant teaches that since Kamimura teaches “excellent defect inhibition performance before the liquid is actually used in a production process”, the examiner’s combination of references to improper because applicant recites that the liquid is ejected on the substrate “without first being inspected and treated for the contaminants prior to the start of the substrate cleaning process”. This line of argument is not persuasive because the examiner isn’t pulling any pre-rinse inspection or pre-rinse treatment from Kamimura. The examiner is not somehow blending all of the teachings of Kamimura into the teachings of Orii in view of Hwang. Instead, the examiner is simply lifting Kamimura’s substrate inspection technique for counting metal contaminants. In the examiner’s combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura in view of Kashkoush, for example, the rinse liquid is not first inspected and treated for the contaminants prior to a start of the substrate cleaning process.
Applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill would NOT have found it obvious to rely on the teachings of Orii, Hwang, Kamimura, Inoue, and Shin to reach the claimed invention. In particular, none of the these cited prior art references includes any teachings, suggestions, or motivations that would lead one of ordinary skill to a substrate treatment method designed for the purpose of retaining as much contaminants as possible on a surface of a substrate that is being cleaned in order to use the retained contaminants on the surface of the substate to determine whether a substrate treating liquid is contaminated to then locate the source of the contamination, as claimed in the amended independent claims”. However, applicant’s claims don’t recite “retaining as much contaminants as possible on a surface of a substrate that is being cleaned”. Applicant’s claims recite what they recite, and the examiner’s above obviousness rejections carefully articulate how the references are combined in order to address applicant’s claimed limitations.
Applicant argues “that all of the cited prior art refences are incapable of disclosing ‘wherein increasing the residence time of the substrate treating liquid on a surface of the substrate is performed to intentionally increase a number of the contaminants within the substrate treating liquid that will be absorbed onto the surface of the substrate”. However, as discussed above, applicant’s use the word “intentionally” has prompted 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, in the developed combination of Orii in view of Hwang in view of Kamimura, the predetermined time for which the rinse step is performed is considered to increase a residence time of the rinse water on the substrate because the residence time is thus longer than it would be if that rinse step were performed for a shorter prior of time. Similarly, the residence time of the rinse water in that rinse step is considered to intentionally increase a number of metal contaminants that can be deposited onto the water by contaminated rinse water relative to a shorter residence time because the shorter residence time would provide fewer opportunities for contaminants entrained in the rinse water to reach the wafer and get deposited thereon.
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714