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 .
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.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2019/0237322 to Okutani in view of US Patent Publication 2007/0022626 to Gomi.
In Reference to Claim 1
Okutani discloses an apparatus for processing a wafer, comprising: a first chamber (Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner); a first nozzle (Fig. 8, 17) in the first chamber and configured to spray a drying agent (Paragraph 5 teaches the liquid can be IPA) to the wafer; a negative pressure chamber (Fig. 8, 90a) located in the first chamber; and a vacuum pump (Fig. 8, 93) and connected with the negative pressure chamber through a pipeline (Fig. 8, 91), wherein the negative pressure chamber is arranged in a direction perpendicular (As showed in Fig. 8, since the vacuum chamber is movable by a moving unit) to the wafer (, and a gas in the negative pressure chamber is sucked by the vacuum pump through the pipeline to generate a negative pressure in the first chamber (Paragraph 163: The suction valve 92 is opened while a suction port 90a provided on the lower end of the suction nozzle 90 is in contact with the IPA on the substrate W, thereby starting the suction of the IPA by the suction device 93.) , so as to reduce a surface pressure of the drying agent sprayed onto the wafer by the first nozzle.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okutani does not teach the vacuum pump is outside the chamber.
Gomi teaches the vacuum pump (Fig. 1, 6) is outside of the chamber (Fig. 1, 2)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Gomi into the design of Okutani. Doing so, would result in the vacuum pump of Okutani being positioned outside of the processing chamber as being taught by Gomi. Both inventions of Okutani and Gomi teach a drying chamber with vacuum system. Gomi teaches a design with an easier access to the vacuum pump in order to facilitate the maintenance.
In Reference to Claim 2
Okutani discloses a second nozzle (Fig. 8, 18) is further arranged in the first chamber and configured to supply an inert gas (Paragraph 92),
Okutani does not teach the first nozzle is in front of the second nozzle in a rotation direction of the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the second nozzle with respect to the first nozzle based on the process requirement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 4
Okutani discloses a controller (Fig. 3, 3) configured to control the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 93) to vacuumize the negative pressure chamber and control movement of the negative pressure chamber.
In Reference to Claim 6
Okutani teaches the pipe line connected to the vacuum port.
Okutani does not teach the detail of the pipe
Gomi teaches the pipeline comprises at least a corrugated pipe or a straight pipe. (as showed in Fig. 1, the pipe is a straight pipe)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Gomi into the design of Okutani. Doing so, would result in a straight pipe being used to connect the vacuum chamber to the vacuum pump. Both inventions of Okutani and Gomi having a vacuum pump drawing vacuum pressure from a vacuum port, a person with ordinary skill in the art will determine the type of the pipe based on the pressure level.
In Reference to Claim 8
Okutani teaches a dryer (Fig. 8, 62) arranged below the wafer and configured to dry the wafer by heat. In Reference to Claim 11
Okutani discloses a method for controlling processing of a wafer, implemented based on the apparatus of claim 1, the method comprising: controlling (Fig. 3, 3) the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 93) of the apparatus to be started; and controlling, according to a preset parameter list, change of positions (Fig. 3, 31/ 33/ 95) of the first nozzle, a second nozzle and the negative pressure chamber of the apparatus.
In Reference to Claim 12
Okutani discloses controlling, according to the preset parameter list, change of the position of the second nozzle of the apparatus (Fig. 3, 31, 33)
In Reference to Claim 13
Okutani discloses a vacuum degree of the negative pressure chamber of the apparatus. (Fig. 3, 93)
In Reference to Claim 14
Okutani discloses the change of the position of the negative pressure chamber comprises at least movement of the negative pressure chamber in a direction parallel to the wafer (Fig. 8, 95 move in both horizontal and vertical direction), or movement of the negative pressure chamber in a direction perpendicular to the wafer. (Fig. 8, 95, move in both horizontal and vertical direction)
In Reference to Claim 18
Okutani discloses a memory (Fig. 3, 3B) configured to store program instructions; and a processor (Fig. 3, 3A) configured to call the program instructions stored in the memory, to execute, according to an obtained program, a method for controlling processing of a wafer, implemented based on the apparatus of claim 1, the method comprising: controlling the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 93)of the apparatus to be started; and controlling, according to a preset parameter list, change of positions of the first nozzle, a second nozzle and the negative pressure chamber of the apparatus (Fig. 3, 31/ 33/ 95).
In Reference to Claim 19
Okutani discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 3, 3B), having stored thereon computer- executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions enable a computer to execute a method for controlling processing of a wafer, implemented based on the apparatus of claim 1, the method comprising: controlling the vacuum pump (Fig. 3, 93) of the apparatus to be started; and controlling, according to a preset parameter list, change of positions of the first nozzle, a second nozzle and the negative pressure chamber of the apparatus. (Fig. 3, 31/33/95).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2001277220 to Yamaoka.
In Reference to Claim 3
Okutami disclose a negative pressure chamber.
The combination of Okutani and GOMI as applied to Claim 1 does not teach detail of the negative pressure chamber.
Yamaoda teaches the negative pressure chamber comprises a first part (Fig. 4, 53) and a second part (Fig. 4, 54), the first part is located above the second part in the direction perpendicular to the wafer (As showed in Fig. 1, the negative chamber is perpendicular to the part being process), and a projection region of the first part is located within a projection region of the second part in a direction parallel to the wafer. (As showed in Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Yamaoda into the combination of Okutami and Gomi as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the vacuum suction port design of Yamaoda being used as the vacuum suction port of Okutami, since Yamaoda teaches a process of performing uniform suction dehydration. So the performance is improved.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okutami and Gomi as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of CA 2996868 to Wagner.
In Reference to Claim 5
Okutami discloses the vacuum device is controlled by a controller.
The combination of Okutami and Gomi as applied to Claim 4 does not teach a vacuum gauge.
Wagner teaches a vacuum gauge (Fig. 3, 38) is arranged in the negative pressure chamber (Fig. 3, 34)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Wagner into the combination of Okutami and Gomi as applied to Claim 4. Doing so, would result in a vacuum gauge being formed in the vacuum chamber of Okutami to provide the pressure value to the controller. Both inventions of Okutami and Wagner teaches a vacuum system control, Wagner teaches pressure sensor of each supply conduit provides a pressure sensor signal responsive to whether the pressure in the conduit is either substantially at vacuum or is at a pressure that is substantially higher than vacuum, so the controlling process would be accurately improved.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of KR20080011903 to Lee.
In Reference to Claim 7
Okutani teaches a control device (Fig. 8, 95)
The combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to Claim 6 does not teach the type of the control device.
Lee teaches a stepping motor (Fig. 2, 61) to control a movement of the arm.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Lee into the design of Okutani. Doing so, would result in a stepping motor being used to control the movement of the vacuum device of Okutani. Both inventions of Okutani and Lee teach of controlling a mechanical device on a surface, Lee teaches a method of improving the process efficiency and accuracy.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okutani and Gomi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2018/0096879 to Kon.
In Reference to Claim 9
Okutani discloses the heating device.
The combination of Okutani and Gomi does not teach the detail of the heating device.
Kon teaches the dryer comprises a Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamp (Fig. 2, 40).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Kon into the combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to Claim 8. Doing so, would result in the LED light being used as the heating element of Okutani. Both inventions of Okutani and Kon are in the same field of endeavor, Kon teaches applying heating with LED which is the energy efficient. So, the operation cost will be reduced.
In Reference to Claim 10
Okutani discloses a controller which controls the processing liquid supply unit, the heater unit, the heating medium supply unit, the opening defining unit, and the substrate rotating unit. (In Paragraph 34)
The Office considers “adjust, according to a position of the first nozzle, change of temperature of the LED lamp, such that the LED lamp has a higher temperature in a specific region than at other positions, wherein the specific region comprises a projection region of the first nozzle in the direction perpendicular to the wafer " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Okutani teaches the controller control the nozzle, the heat unit and the rotation of the wafer, it must provide drying process with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okutami and Gomi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wagner.
In Reference to Claim 15
Okutami discloses the vacuum device is controlled by a controller.
The combination of Okutami and Gomi as applied to Claim 11 does not teach a vacuum gauge.
Wagner teaches a vacuum gauge (Fig. 3, 38) is arranged in the negative pressure chamber (Fig. 3, 34)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Wagner into the combination of Okutami and Gomi as applied to Claim 4. Doing so, would result in a vacuum gauge being formed in the vacuum chamber of Okutami to provide the pressure value to the controller. Both inventions of Okutami and Wagner teaches a vacuum system control, Wagner teaches pressure sensor of each supply conduit provides a pressure sensor signal responsive to whether the pressure in the conduit is either substantially at vacuum or is at a pressure that is substantially higher than vacuum, so the controlling process would be accurately improved.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee.
In Reference to Claim 16
Okutani teaches a control device (Fig. 8, 95)
The combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to Claim 11 does not teach the type of the control device.
Lee teaches a stepping motor (Fig. 2, 61) to control a movement of the arm.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Lee into the design of Okutani. Doing so, would result in a stepping motor being used to control the movement of the vacuum device of Okutani. Both inventions of Okutani and Lee teach of controlling a mechanical device on a surface, Lee teaches a method of improving the process efficiency and accuracy.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okutani and Gomi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication to Kon.
In Reference to Claim 17
Okutani discloses the heating device.
The combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to Claim 11 does not teach the detail of the heating device.
Kon teaches the dryer comprises a Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamp (Fig. 2, 40).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Kon into the combination of Okutani and Gomi as applied to Claim 11.
Doing so, would result in the LED light being used as the heating element of Okutani. Both inventions of Okutani and Kon are in the same field of endeavor, Kon teaches applying heating with LED which is the energy efficient. So, the operation cost will be reduced.
The Office considers “adjust, according to a position of the first nozzle, change of temperature of the LED lamp, such that the LED lamp has a higher temperature in a specific region than at other positions, wherein the specific region comprises a projection region of the first nozzle in the direction perpendicular to the wafer " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Okutani teaches the controller control the nozzle, the heat unit and the rotation of the wafer, it must provide drying process with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Starting on Page 6, the Applicant argues the 35 USC 102 claim rejection to Claim 1. The Office respectively disagree. On Page 7, the Applicant argues “Okutani fails to disclose the elements recited above. As shown in Fig. 8 and Para. 163 of Okutani, “a suction port 90a provided on the lower end of the suction nozzle 90 is in contact with the IPA on the substrate W”, the suction nozzle (circled in blue) is used to drain the IPA from the substrate. Apparently the IPA is liquied, the suction nozzle used for liquid could not reduce the surface pressure of the IPA. Thus, it is not the same as the negative pressure clamber of this application.” So Okatani does provide a suction nozzle supplied with negative pressure. The nozzle remove the IPA from the surface of the subtract, therefore the pressure on the surface will be reduced. Further, The Office considers “so as to reduce a surface pressure of the drying agent sprayed on toe the wafer” as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the suction port of Okatani is a suction port, it must provide a negative pressure with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”.
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 DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 8/2/25