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 January 29, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 2-3, 5 and 7-8 are canceled, and claims 1, 4 and 6 are pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating device” in claim 1 and “plating liquid supply”, “moving mechanism”, and “heating device” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motomatsu et al (US 2018/0002811) in view of Mathieu (US 6090261), Japan 2016-63093 (hereinafter ‘093) and Japan 04-167516 (hereinafter ‘516), EITHER alone OR further in view of Hiramatsu et al (US 2003/0026060).
Claim 1: Motomatsu teaches a substrate processing method (note 0002), which includes holding a substrate by using a holder configured to hold the substrate, where the holder includes a chuck member configured to hold a bottom surface of the substrate (note figure 2, 0044, 0079, note chuck member 521, for example), supplying a plating liquid onto a top surface of the held substrate (note figure 2, 0044, 0047, 0085-0086), covering the substrate by using a cover body before or after the supplying of the plating liquid (note figure 2, 0055, 0059-0060, 0091-0092), and heating the plating liquid on the substrate by using a heating device (heater 63 understood to meet the requirements of a heating device under 35 USC 112(f) as applicant’s disclosure indicates using a heater as the heating device) provided in the cover body, while keeping the substrate covered with the cover body (note figure 2, 0065-0066, 0096-0097, for example). The heating device has multiple heating regions arranged concentrically, configured such that temperatures of the multiple heating regions are individually adjustable (note figure 5, 0066-0067, with heaters 631, 632, 633, for example, and since individual caloric power per unit area can vary and the heaters are separated from one another and driven independently, and the power supplied to different heaters can be different and heat increased based on the caloric power supplied, it would at least be suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperatures can be individually adjusted to give desired amounts of heating with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, given the described differences in operation for different heaters), The plating liquid can be for electroless plating, for example (note 0048). The process includes rotating the substrate (note 0085, 0089, for example).
(A) As to an innermost heating region among the multiple heating regions having a diameter substantially the same as the diameter of the chuck member, Motomatsu indicates that the diameter of the chuck member 521 can be significantly smaller than both the wafer substrate W and the cover member where the outside diameter of the entire heater 63 (that is, the diameter of the outermost heater 632) is shown as equal to the diameter of the wafer substrate W (note figure 5, 0065-0066, indicating that the diameter of the chuck member 521 is less than the diameter of the outermost heater 632). Furthermore, innermost heater 631 (so that innermost heating region) is indicated as being provided with higher caloric power per unit area then the intermediate heater 632, where the it is indicated that the plating liquid on the inner periphery portion of the substrate W tends to be difficult to heat by being affected by the chuck member 521, so more heat needed to the inner periphery portion than the intermediate portion to affect the heating results (note 0124, figure 5).
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 Motomatsu to specifically provide that the innermost heating region among the multiple heating regions has a diameter substantially the same as that of the chuck member with an expectation of providing desirably controlled heating for the plating liquid on the substrate, since Motomatsu specifically indicates that the wafer is smaller than the diameter of the wafer substrate and diameter of the outermost heater, and further indicates that the presence of the chuck affects the needed heating results for the inner periphery side portion of the substrate, and thus it would be suggested that the innermost heating region be of the same diameter as the chuck member, such that the desired heating adjustment due to the presence of the chuck member can be provided to all areas where the chuck present.
(B) Furthermore, Motomatsu does not specifically provide supplying a cooling gas by multiple cooling gas nozzles to the bottom surface of the substrate or to the holder from below the substrate during the heating of the plating liquid, where all of the cooling gas nozzles are disposed outside of the chuck member, where the nozzles are disposed below the substrate at positions respectively corresponding to the multiple heating regions, arranged to be aligned with each other in a radial direction across the different heating regions and disposed spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction within each of the multiple heating regions, where one of the multiple cooling gas nozzles corresponding to the innermost heater discharges the cooling gas towards a bottom surface of the chuck member. Motomatsu does provide that the heating (first heating, for example), heats the liquid to allow the liquid to rise to a predetermined temperature (note 0097) and temperature maintained in a second heating process, using the same heater that is a further distance away from the substrate (note 0100-0101).
Mathieu further describes providing plating liquid, and notes electroless plating liquid, to contact a wafer substrate that rotates (column 1, lines 10-25, column 4, lines 25-55, column 6, lines 50-65, note substrate 64, figure 4). On the opposite side of the substrate, a bladder system contacts the substrate to allowed controlled cooling and/or heating zones to contact the substrate, where the heating or cooling comes from heat transfer medium provided to the bladder (note figure 4, column 7, line 55 through column 10, line 35, column 11, lines 1-15). It is described that the heating and/or cooling zones allow a temperature gradient to be provided over the substrate, where by creating such a temperature gradient to allow the thickness of the plating layers near the substrate to be tailored, where various regions of the substrate may be heated or cooled to different degrees in order to create a plating profile with a thickness profile as required, where cooling the region results in less plating and heating the region results in more plating (note column 4, lines 1-30).
‘093 further describes a substrate processing method (abstract, page 2, translation), where the substrate is held in a holder configured to hold the substrate (note figures 2, 3, page 3, translation), supplying a processing liquid onto a top surface of the held substrate (note figures 2, 3, page 3, translation), and supplying a cooling gas to a bottom surface of the substrate from below the substrate (note figure 3, page 3, translation), and where the cooling gas can be supplied from multiple nozzles located below the substrate (note figures 8-11, where gas of different temperatures can be ejected from different ports/nozzles to adjust the temperature of the wafer to be more uniform over the surface, for example, pages 6-7, translation), where gas temperature provided can be based on temperature of the wafers with the supplied processing liquid (note page 5, translation). Processing liquid is described as etching fluid, but is not limited to this (note page 8, translation). The substrate is rotated by the substrate holder (note page 3, translation). As shown in figures 8-11, ports/nozzles can be aligned in a radial direction across the substrate area and disposed spaced apart from each other aligned along a circumferential direction.
‘516 descries providing cooling of the back side of a rotating wafer/substrate held by a holder that would include a chuck (note figures 1, 2, pages 1-2, description translation), where cooling gas can be supplied from multiple gas nozzles 13 which are located outside the chuck 11, 21,21a and below the substrate directed to the bottom surface of the substrate and also the holder/chuck (note figure 2, arms 21a of the chuck, at least) (note figures 1, 2, pages 1-2, description translation).
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 Motomatsu to also supply cooling gas to different regions/zones of the bottom surface of the substrate from multiple cooling gas nozzles located below the substrate during heating the plating liquid as suggested by Mathieu and ‘093 with an expectation of being able to also provide desirable heating gradients to give a desired thickness profile, since Motomatsu indicates to heat applied plating liquid on the substrate, and Mathieu indicates that when providing applied plating liquid which would have a temperature to a substrate one can also apply zoned heating or cooling to different parts of the opposite side of the substrate (which would be the bottom side in Motomatsu) in order to tailor a thickness profile of the resulting plating as desired, where cooling would reduce plating thickness, and understood that different cooling temperatures would give different thickness (note column 10, lines 1-10, of Mathieu), and ‘093 further teaches how a similar zoned cooling can be provided to a substrate held in a holder and having processing liquid applied similarly to Motomatsu, and can be provided by applying cooling gas from muliple cooling gas nozzles located below the substrate in the multiple zones at different temperatures to the back of the substrate on which the processing liquid applied, and the gas treatment would be during heating as the simultaneous heating and cooling of at least some areas would give the gradients. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motomatsu in view of Mathieu and ‘093 to provide all of the cooling gas nozzles disposed outside of the chuck member of Motomatsu such that the cooling gas is discharged to the substrate and the holder/chuck member as suggested by ‘516 with an expectation of predictably acceptable cooling results, since ‘093 indicates how cooling gas can be provided to the substrate from cooling gas nozzles directed upwards or at an angle towards the back substrate (figures 8, 9, 12), and ‘516 indicates how cooling gas can be conventionally provided to the back of the substrate held by a holder/chuck member using cooling gas nozzles located below the substrate and directed towards the substrate and also the chuck, where the nozzles are disposed outside of the chuck member, and furthermore, as to the position of the nozzles being at positions corresponding to the multiple heating regions, arranged to be aligned with each other in a radial direction across the different heating regions and disposed spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction within each of the multiple heating regions, and one of the nozzles located corresponding to the innermost heating region discharging the cooling gas towards a bottom surface of the chuck member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the placement of the nozzles to allow for the desired cooling to occur wherever on the surface needed, which would include positions corresponding to the multiple heating regions, allowing adjustment of heating/cooling in all regions of the substrate, where Motomatsu shows concentric heating regions, and ‘093 shows how cooling nozzles can be arranged in a concentric fashion (so cooling in concentric zones), and nozzles aligned in a radial direction across the substrate and disposed spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction in multiple concentric zones, and furthermore, to provide of the discharging of the cooling gas for the innermost heating region to discharge the cooling gas towards a bottom surface of the chuck member, because as discussed above, the chuck member shown in Motomatsu would cover the innermost heating region (as the same diameter of such region), and ‘516 indicates cooling gas can be acceptably directed at a chuck member, and the cooling of a chuck member would be expected to also affect the temperature of the innermost region on the substate, since Motomatsu as discussed above indicated that the chuck member affects heating needed for the substrate, and as well as to the specific placement of the cooling gas nozzles, as discussed in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), rearrangement of parts can be considered an obvious matter of design choice.
As to the chuck member also including a first surface that holds the bottom surface of the substrate and a second surface opposite the figure surface, this is shown in Motomatsu, figure 2, chuck 521, and in ‘516, figure 1, chuck 11, figure 2, chuck, 21, 21a (note here, at least end areas of arms 21a holding the substrate). As to having the cooling gas discharged directly towards the second surface of the chuck member by the one of the nozzles located corresponding to the innermost heating region, ‘093 further shows that an upwards or angled directed of gas can be desired to be discharged from gas nozzles to the substrate figures 8, 9, 12), and with gas from the area where the holder is (note figure 3), and when using the outside nozzles as in ‘516 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the direction of the nozzles to provide coverage as desired by ‘093 to provide desirable cooling as indicated by ‘093, and when doing so, the outside nozzles would be directed to supply the cooling gas directed at the second surface of the chuck member as well, and noting the discussion above as to the positioning as well.
Optionally, further using Hiramatsu, Hiramatsu further describes a chuck for holding a bottom surface of a substrate, where it is described how a chuck surface can transfer heat to a substrate (note 0006), and where it is desired to have the chuck have temperature controlling means to allow desired substrate heating (note 0092). It is described how the front surface of the chuck would hold the substrate 9 (note figure 1, 0041, 0044) and rear surface of the chuck 101 can be cooled by spraying coolant from openings onto the back surface to cool the chuck (note figure 10, 0125-0126), where the coolant can be gas (air, for example) (note 0093), which would thus allow for further temperature control of the chuck and resultingly the substrate using gas flow through openings/nozzles.
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motomatsu in view of Mathieu, ‘093 and ‘516 to specifically provide that a cooling gas nozzle at a location corresponding to the innermost heating region is used to supply cooling gas directly towards the second surface of the chuck member as suggested by Hiramatsu with an expectation of providing desirable temperature control of the substrate, since as indicated by Motomatsu there is desired to be zoned heating over the substrate, which would include areas covered by the chuck member (note figures 1, 5, 0066) and as discussed in part (A) above, and Mathieu and ‘093 would suggest providing countering zoned cooling from cooling nozzles, and ‘516 notes the known use of cooling nozzles separate from the chuck, and Hiramatsu indicate how when providing a chuck onto a supporting wafer, the chuck can provide temperature transfer, and the back of the chuck can be cooled with gas flow from openings in order to help control the chuck temperature, which would resultingly affect the substrate, and thus to help provide cooling to the substrate countering the zoned heating from above, it would have been obvious to provide a cooling gas nozzle to the chuck where the substrate is covered by the chuck in order to provide cooling to the chuck by directly spraying the chuck with the gas, which would transfer to the substrate to help provide controlled temperature treatment, because heating occurs on the substrate covered by the chuck and Hiramatsu would indicate cooling temperature control treatment to this area of the substate can be provided by providing cooling gas directed to the back of the chuck.
Clam 4: As to the cooling gas at room temperature, Mathieu describes how, for example, the bladder with cooling medium temperature can be 0-12 degrees C below the temperature of the plating solution, and that one would optimize for the best temperature (note column 10, lines 1-20), and the tank (plating solution) temperature can be 15-95 degrees C (note column 8, lines 60-65), so the temperature of the cooling medium would overlap room temperature (such as around 20 degrees C). ‘516 also describes how cooling gas can be supplied at a temperature of 23 degrees C (which can be considered room temperature) (note pages 1-2, description translation). Similarly, one would optimize the temperature of the cooling gas used to provide desirable cooling, giving results in the claimed range. Note as well MPEP 2144.05(II)(A):
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6: Motomatsu would provide a processing apparatus with a holder configured to hold a substrate and including a chuck member configured to hold a bottom surface of the substrate (note 0044, figure 2), a plating liquid supply configured to supply a plating liquid onto a top surface of the substrate held by the holder (nozzles and source understood to meet the 35 USC112(f) requirements) (note 0044, 0047), a cover body configured to cover the substrate held by the holder (note 0055, 0064), a moving mechanism configured to move the cover body (n0te 0057-0059, as described in these paragraphs understood to meet the 35 USC 112(f) requirements), a heating device (heater understood to meet the 35 USC 112(f) requirements) provided in the cover body (note 0065), and controller configured to output a control signal such that holding the substrate using the holder is performed, supplying the plating liquid onto the top surface of the substrate using the plating liquid supply is performed, covering the substrate with the cover body before or after supplying the plating liquid is performed, heating the plating liquid on the substrate by using the heating device while keeping the substrate covered with the cover body is performed (note 0031-0033, 0077, which would provide the steps as discussed for claim 1 above). Furthermore, as discussed for claim 1 above, Motomatsu would indicate/suggest that the heating device has multiple heating regions arranged concentrically, and configured such that temperatures of the multiple heating reasons are individually adjustable, and that an innermost heating region among the multiple heating regions has a diameter that is substantially the same as that of the chuck member.
Motomatsu in view of Mathieu, ‘093 and ‘516 would suggest the use of the cooling gas as discussed for claim 1 above, where it would further be suggested that the cooling gas would be supplied by a cooling gas supply including multiple cooling gas nozzles disposed below the substrate held by the holder/chuck and configured to supply cooling gas to a bottom surface of the substrate and holder, and with all of the cooling gas nozzles disposed outside of the chuck member and configured to discharge the cooling gas to the chuck member as discussed by ‘093 at figures 8-11, pages 6-7, translation and by ‘516, figures 1-2, and pages 1-2, description translation, and also as discussed for claim 1 above. ‘093 also indicates that a controller (control device 4) can be used to control all the processes (note page 2, translation), which would suggest that the final system controller would also include the performing of supplying the cooling gas from the cooling gas supply to the bottom surface of the substrate when the heating of the plating liquid is performed. The position of the multiple cooling gas nozzles to supply the cooling gas disposed below the substrate while being located at positions respectively corresponding to the multiple heating regions,arranged to be aligned with each other in a radial direction across the different heating regions and disposed spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction within each of the multiple heating regions, and one of the nozzles located corresponding to the innermost heating region discharging cooling gas towards a bottom surface of the chuck member would be suggested as discussed for claim 1 above.
As to the chuck member also including a first surface that holds the bottom surface of the substrate and a second surface opposite the figure surface, this is shown in Motomatsu, figure 2, chuck 521, and in ‘516, figure 1, chuck 11, figure 2, chuck, 21, 21a (note here, at least end areas of arms 21a holding the substrate). As to having the cooling gas discharged directly towards the second surface of the chuck member by the one of the nozzles located corresponding to the innermost heating region, ‘093 further shows that an upwards or angled directed of gas can be desired to be discharged from gas nozzles to the substrate figures 8, 9, 12), and with gas from the area where the holder is (note figure 3), and when using the outside nozzles as in ‘516 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the direction of the nozzles to provide coverage as desired by ‘093 to provide desirable cooling as indicated by ‘093, and when doing so, the outside nozzles would be directed to supply the cooling gas directed at the second surface of the chuck member as well, and noting the discussion for claim 1 as to the positioning as well.
Optionally, further using Hiramatsu, Hiramatsu further describes a chuck for holding a bottom surface of a substrate, where it is described how a chuck surface can transfer heat to a substrate (note 0006), and where it is desired to have the chuck have temperature controlling means to allow desired substrate heating (note 0092). It is described how the front surface of the chuck would hold the substrate 9 (note figure 1, 0041, 0044) and rear surface of the chuck 101 can be cooled by spraying coolant from openings onto the back surface to cool the chuck (note figure 10, 0125-0126), where the coolant can be gas (air, for example) (note 0093), which would thus allow for further temperature control of the chuck and resultingly the substrate using gas flow through openings/nozzles.
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Motomatsu in view of Mathieu, ‘093 and ‘516 to specifically provide that a cooling gas nozzle at a location corresponding to the innermost heating region is used to supply cooling gas directly towards the second surface of the chuck member as suggested by Hiramatsu with an expectation of providing desirable temperature control of the substrate, since as indicated by Motomatsu there is desired to be zoned heating over the substrate, which would include areas covered by the chuck member (note figures 1, 5, 0066) and as discussed above, and Mathieu and ‘093 would suggest providing countering zoned cooling from cooling nozzles, and ‘516 notes the known use of cooling nozzles separate from the chuck, and Hiramatsu indicate how when providing a chuck onto a supporting wafer, the chuck can provide temperature transfer, and the back of the chuck can be cooled with gas flow from openings in order to help control the chuck temperature, which would resultingly affect the substrate, and thus to help provide cooling to the substrate countering the zoned heating from above, it would have been obvious to provide a cooling gas nozzle to the chuck where the substrate is covered by the chuck in order to provide cooling to the chuck by directly spraying the chuck with the gas, which would transfer to the substrate to help provide controlled temperature treatment, because heating occurs on the substrate covered by the chuck and Hiramatsu would indicate cooling temperature control treatment to this area of the substate can be provided by providing cooling gas directed to the back of the chuck.
Lee et al (US 2017/0140975) indicates that the contact of chuck parts (here pins) with a substrate affects the temperatures of liquid on the substrate (note 0003-0005, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
It is argued that as to the 35 USC 103 rejections, Hiramatsu does not suggest the claimed arrangement of cooling nozzles. Further, it is argued that ‘093 does not provide the suggest at to what the relationship of the outlets is with heating zones, and the outlets are only inside a holding unit, and so does not provide the claimed features of the cooling nozzles as now claimed.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. The claimed arrangement of the cooling nozzles would be suggested by the combination of references, where Motomatsu provides the concentric heating regions with individually temperatures, where Mathieu would suggest that individual heating and cooling areas would be desirably provided to a substrate, where ‘093 indicates how when providing cooling to the back of a substrate, cooling at different temperatures can be provided to different areas by providing cooling jets from different outlets/nozzles, with gas of different temperatures exiting different to adjust temperature as needed in different areas, suggesting that the heating and cooling can be provided and adjusted to help control substrate temperature. While ‘092 does not specifically say the nozzle/outlet pattern matches the heating zones, it does indicate a structure of cooling nozzle patterns with radial and circumferential positioning to use, and the specific placing of the nozzles would be optimized as discussed in the rejection. Furthermore, while ‘093 shows the nozzles in the holder, ‘516 would indicate how it is understood that similar nozzles can be provided outside the holder, and thus positioning the nozzles of ‘516 in a pattern as described in ‘093, for example, would be expected to have predictably acceptable results, since whether in the holder or not, the nozzles are understood to be able to provide the desired gas flow to the substrate. 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
Prosecution Insights