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, 5-6, 8-13, 23, and 24 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.
Claim 1 recites “to cause uniform heating of the treatment liquid that is supplied onto the substrate by heating only the center of the substrate instead of uniformly heating an entire surface of the substrate” in lines 20-22 of claim 1, and this limitation concerning uniform heating of the liquid is not taught by the specification as originally filed. Par. [0065] of applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2023/0215740) recites how the liquid “may be more uniformly dried”, but heating and drying are not totally interchangeable terms, as there are conditions (such as ambient pressure or liquid thickness) that may affect drying (via evaporation, for example) other than heating.
Claim 12 recites “to cause uniform heating of the treatment liquid that is supplied onto the substrate by heating only the center of the substrate instead of uniformly heating an entire surface of the substrate” in lines 28-30 of claim 12, and this limitation concerning uniform heating of the liquid is not taught by the specification as originally filed. Par. [0065] of applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2023/0215740) recites how the liquid “may be more uniformly dried” (italics by examiner), but heating and drying are not totally interchangeable terms, as there are conditions (such as ambient pressure or liquid thickness) that may affect drying (via evaporation, for example) other than heating.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the vacuum holes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0313171 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2013/0333722 by Tanaka.
With regard to claim 1, Higuchi teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising a stage 14 on which a substrate W is seated, wherein the apparatus comprises a nozzle 22 configured to supply a treatment liquid onto the substrate, wherein the apparatus comprises a resistance heater 14A positioned in the stage, and wherein Higuchi does not teach that the apparatus comprises other heaters (Par. 0020-0035). Higuchi teaches that a movement mechanism (item 50 in Figure 3) is structurally capable of moving the nozzle from above the center of the substrate to above an outer peripheral surface of the substrate (Par. 0024). Higuchi teaches that the apparatus comprises a flow rate adjustment valve to adjust the flow rate of the liquid fed to the nozzle (Par. 0021).
Applicant’s limitation specifying that liquid supplied from the nozzle comprises a solvent and a solute specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. The nozzle 22 is structurally capable of discharging such a liquid. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the liquid is supplied from the nozzle 22 while the nozzle moves from the center of the substrate to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. The nozzle 22 is structurally capable of discharging liquid and capable of moving (via moving mechanism 50) from above the center of the substrate to above an outer peripheral surface of the substrate, and thus the nozzle 22 is considered to be structurally capable of performing the treatment liquid supply while moving from the center to the outer peripheral surface specified by applicant. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the treatment liquid is supplied at a constant liquid supply speed is considered to specify intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. Higuchi expressly teaches that liquid is fed to nozzle 22 via a flow rate adjustment valve (Par. 0021 of Higuchi), and the apparatus of Higuchi is thus considered to be structurally capable of having the treatment liquid supplied from nozzle 22 with a constant flow rate.
Higuchi illustrates the heater 14A in Figure 2 as not extending to below peripheral edge surfaces of the wafer W. Higuchi doesn’t recite (in language) that the heater 14A in Figure 2 doesn’t extend to below peripheral edge surfaces of the wafer W, but Figure 2 illustrates as much. Higuchi’s Figure 2 is considered to suggest having the heater in the center of the stage 14 and to suggest having the heater comprise a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate.
Tanaka teaches that, when attempting to use a heater in a wafer support (item 31 in Figures 32 and 33) to heat a substrate supported on the wafer support, heating of the substrate can successfully be accomplished with a heater that is below a center of the substrate and has a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate (Par. 0043).
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 apparatus of Higuchi by having the heater 14A positioned below the center of the substrate and by having the heater 14A have a smaller diameter than the substrate such the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Higuchi, as Higuchi’s Figure 2 is considered to suggest having the heater in the center of the stage 14 and to suggest having the heater comprise a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. Further motivation was provided by the teachings of Tanaka, as Tanaka teaches that, when attempting to use a heater in a wafer support to heat a substrate supported on the wafer support, heating of the substrate can successfully be accomplished with a heater that is below a center of the substrate and has a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate.
In this developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is below the center of the substrate and doesn’t vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka doesn’t recite that there is thus a time when the heater heats the center of the substrate without heating the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. However, in this developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, since the heater is below the center of the substrate while not being vertically below the outer peripheral edge of the substrate, it is reasonably expected that radiating heat (from the heater 14A) will be able to only heat the center of the substrate before causing the outer peripheral edge of the substrate to be heated by heat from the heater 14A because the heat has to radiate further to reach the outer peripheral edge of the substrate.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that uniform heating of the treatment liquid occurs is considered to specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is considered to be structurally capable of performing uniform heating of treatment liquid on the substrate due to the well-known fact that heat moves from hotter region(s) to cooler region(s), thus allowing the treatment liquid to be heated to a uniform temperature via heat from the heater 14A.
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, as developed thus far, does not recite that the apparatus comprises a chamber. However, in the art of substrate processing, it is well known to have substrate processing equipment protected (from the external environment) via a chamber. Tanaka, for example, teaches having their substrate processing equipment inside a chamber (item 5 in Figure 1 of Tanaka and Par. 0042 of Tanaka). 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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka by having the substrate-processing apparatus comprise a chamber for protecting substrate processing equipment, including the stage 14. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of substrate processing, it is well known to have substrate processing equipment protected (from the external environment) via a chamber.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is disposed in the stage 14 (Par. 0035 and Figure 2 of Higuchi).
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, as developed thus far, does not recite that the apparatus comprises a fan filter unit.
Tanaka that when keeping substrate processing equipment within a chamber (item 5 of Figure 1), a clean chamber interior atmosphere can be successfully maintained by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device 14 while clean, new air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit (FFU in Figure 1; Par. 0042).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka by having the chamber interior atmosphere maintained (including during a time after the nozzle discharges treatment liquid onto the substrate) in a clean state by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device while clean, new air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when keeping substrate processing equipment within a chamber, a clean chamber interior atmosphere can be successfully maintained by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device while clean, new air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit.
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, as developed thus far, does not recite that the apparatus comprises a fan filter unit.
Tanaka that when keeping substrate processing equipment within a chamber (item 5 of Figure 1), a clean chamber interior atmosphere can be successfully maintained by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device 14 while clean, external air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit (FFU in Figure 1; Par. 0042).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka by having the chamber interior atmosphere maintained (including during a time after the nozzle discharges treatment liquid onto the substrate) in a clean state by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device while clean, external air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when keeping substrate processing equipment within a chamber, a clean chamber interior atmosphere can be successfully maintained by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device while clean, external air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit. Since gas expands to fill its container, clean air supplied into the chamber via the fan filter unit is considered to be supplied to the center of the substrate.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0313171 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2013/0333722 by Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0001333 by Otsuji.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka teaches that the heater is a resistance heater (Par. 0035 of Higuchi), but the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not recite that this resistance heater is a heating wire.
Otsuji teaches that when attempting to use an embedded heating element to provide heat to a substrate by having power applied to the embedded element, a heating element made of wire can successfully be used to perform such heating (Par. 0198).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka such that the heater is a heating wire embedded in the stage. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Otsuji, who teaches that when attempting to use an embedded heating element to provide heat to a substrate by having power applied to the embedded element, a heating element made of wire can successfully be used to perform such heating.
Claims 23, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0313171 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2013/0333722 by Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0312678 by Morikawa.
With regard to claim 23, the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka teaches that the stage 14 could be provided as a vacuum chuck that uses vacuum suction to affix the substrate to the stage (Par. 0025 of Higuchi).
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the vacuum chuck comprises vacuum holes.
Tanaka that when attempting to use a vacuum chuck to suction-grip a substrate onto the chuck, the vacuum chuck can successfully grip a substrate via vacuum holes formed in the vacuum chuck (Par. 0044 and 0068).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka such that the stage 14 is a vacuum chuck that comprises vacuum holes for suction-affixing the substrate to the chuck. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when attempting to use a vacuum chuck to suction-grip a substrate onto the chuck, the vacuum chuck can successfully grip a substrate via vacuum holes formed in the vacuum chuck.
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not teach that the vacuum chuck with vacuum holes also comprises pins.
Morikawa teaches that when attempting to load a substate onto a suction chuck, such loading can successfully be achieved with vertically-movable lift pins (one of which is illustrated as item 211 in Figure 6) attached to a spin chuck, wherein the pins can advantageously be used to initially support a substrate handed over from a transfer robot, wherein the pins then descend such that the substrate is placed onto the spin chuck, and wherein the negative pressure is then applied to the lower surface of the substrate in order to suction-hold the substrate on the spin chuck (Par. 0094, 0095, 0103, 0104, 0217, 0218).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka such that the chuck comprises vertically-movable lift pins attached to the chuck such that a substrate can be initially received by the pins while the pins are in a raised position, wherein the pins can then lower the substrate onto the chuck, and wherein negative suction (applied via the vacuum holes of the chuck) is then applied to the substrate in order to affix the substrate to the chuck. The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not provide much detail about how the substrate is initially placed onto the chuck, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Morikawa, who teaches that when attempting to load a substate onto chuck, such loading can successfully be achieved with vertically-movable lift pins attached to a chuck, wherein the pins can be used to initially support a substrate handed over from a transfer robot, wherein the pins then descend such that the substrate is placed onto the chuck, and wherein the negative pressure is then applied to the lower surface of the substrate in order to suction-hold the substrate on the chuck. In this combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa, when the substrate is supported by the lift pins, a portion of the substrate corresponding to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate not vertically overlapped with the first heater is also supported by the pins because that portion is part of the supported substrate.
The developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa does not explicitly recite that the added lift pins are positioned such that a plurality of vacuum holes are positioned between lift pins. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa such that a plurality of the vacuum holes are positioned between lift pins, as that plurality of vacuum holes could successfully contribute to the task of sucking the substrate onto the spin chuck while positioned between lift pins.
With regard to claim 10, applicant’s limitation specifying that the vacuum holes suck the substrate after the nozzle supplies it treatment liquid specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa, the vacuum holes are structurally capable of affixing the substrate to the chuck after the nozzle supplies treatment liquid to the substrate.
With regard to claim 11, in the apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa, a rotatory drive 16 (in Figure 2 of Higuchi) rotates the stage (Par. 0020 of Higuchi). Applicant’s limitation specifying that the rotation driving part does not rotate the stage while the vacuum holes provide suction to the substate specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa, the rotary drive is structurally capable of not rotating the stage when the vacuum holes initially affix the substrate to the stage.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0313171 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2013/0333722 by Tanaka.
With regard to claim 12, Higuchi teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising a stage 14 on which a substrate W is seated, wherein the apparatus comprises a nozzle 22 configured to supply a treatment liquid onto the substrate, wherein the apparatus comprises a resistance heater 14A positioned in the stage, and wherein Higuchi does not teach that the apparatus comprises other heaters (Par. 0020-0035). Higuchi teaches that a movement mechanism (item 50 in Figure 3) is structurally capable of moving the nozzle from above the center of the substrate to above an outer peripheral surface of the substrate (Par. 0024). Higuchi teaches that the apparatus comprises a flow rate adjustment valve to adjust the flow rate of the liquid fed to the nozzle (Par. 0021).
Applicant’s limitation specifying that liquid supplied from the nozzle comprises a solvent and a solute specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. The nozzle 22 is structurally capable of discharging such a liquid. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the liquid is supplied from the nozzle 22 while the nozzle moves from the center of the substrate to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. The nozzle 22 is structurally capable of discharging liquid and capable of moving (via moving mechanism 50) from above the center of the substrate to above an outer peripheral surface of the substrate, and thus the nozzle 22 is considered to be structurally capable of performing the treatment liquid supply while moving from the center to the outer peripheral surface specified by applicant. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the treatment liquid is supplied at a constant liquid supply speed is considered to specify intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. Higuchi expressly teaches that liquid is fed to nozzle 22 via a flow rate adjustment valve (Par. 0021 of Higuchi), and the apparatus of Higuchi is thus considered to be structurally capable of having the treatment liquid supplied from nozzle 22 with a constant flow rate. Applicant’s limitation specifying that at least a portion of the solvent is volatilized from the treatment liquid such that the treatment liquid is solidified or hardened to become a particle holding layer specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. Higuchi’s nozzle 22 is structurally capable of supplying a treatment liquid that comprises a volatile solvent (that can evaporate) and a solute that can solidify after such evaporation to form a particle holding layer. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the nozzle is also used to supply removal liquid for removing the particle holding layer specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not considered to carry patentable weight. Higuchi’s nozzle 22 is structurally capable of supplying such a removal layer downward towards such a particle holding layer.
Higuchi illustrates the heater 14A in Figure 2 as not extending to below peripheral edge surfaces of the wafer W. Higuchi doesn’t recite (in language) that the heater 14A in Figure 2 doesn’t extend to below peripheral edge surfaces of the wafer W, but Figure 2 illustrates as much. Higuchi’s Figure 2 is considered to suggest having the heater in the center of the stage 14 and to suggest having the heater comprise a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate.
Tanaka teaches that, when attempting to use a heater in a wafer support (item 31 in Figures 32 and 33) to heat a substrate supported on the wafer support, heating of the substrate can successfully be accomplished with a heater that is below a center of the substrate and has a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate (Par. 0043).
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 apparatus of Higuchi by having the heater 14A positioned below the center of the substrate and by having the heater 14A have a smaller diameter than the substrate such the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Higuchi, as Higuchi’s Figure 2 is considered to suggest having the heater in the center of the stage 14 and to suggest having the heater comprise a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. Further motivation was provided by the teachings of Tanaka, as Tanaka teaches that, when attempting to use a heater in a wafer support to heat a substrate supported on the wafer support, heating of the substrate can successfully be accomplished with a heater that is below a center of the substrate and has a smaller diameter than the substrate such that the heater does not vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate.
In this developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is below the center of the substrate and doesn’t vertically overlap the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka doesn’t recite that there is thus a time when the heater heats the center of the substrate without heating the outer peripheral edge of the substrate. However, in this developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, since the heater is below the center of the substrate while not being vertically below the outer peripheral edge of the substrate, it is reasonably expected that radiating heat (from the heater 14A) will be able to only heat the center of the substrate before causing the outer peripheral edge of the substrate to be heated by heat from the heater 14A because the heat has to radiate further to reach the outer peripheral edge of the substrate.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that uniform heating of the treatment liquid occurs is considered to specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is considered to be structurally capable of performing uniform heating of treatment liquid on the substrate due to the well-known fact that heat moves from hotter region(s) to cooler region(s), thus allowing the treatment liquid to be heated to a uniform temperature via heat from the heater 14A.
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, as developed thus far, does not recite that the apparatus comprises a chamber. However, in the art of substrate processing, it is well known to have substrate processing equipment protected (from the external environment) via a chamber. Tanaka, for example, teaches having their substrate processing equipment inside a chamber (item 5 in Figure 1 of Tanaka and Par. 0042 of Tanaka). 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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka by having the substrate-processing apparatus comprise a chamber for protecting substrate processing equipment, including the stage 14. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of substrate processing, it is well known to have substrate processing equipment protected (from the external environment) via a chamber.
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka teaches that the stage 14 could be provided as a vacuum chuck that uses vacuum suction to affix the substrate to the stage (Par. 0025 of Higuchi).
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the vacuum chuck comprises vacuum holes.
Tanaka that when attempting to use a vacuum chuck to suction-grip a substrate onto the chuck, the vacuum chuck can successfully grip a substrate via vacuum holes formed in the vacuum chuck (Par. 0044 and 0068).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka such that the stage 14 is a vacuum chuck that comprises vacuum holes for suction-affixing the substrate to the chuck. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when attempting to use a vacuum chuck to suction-grip a substrate onto the chuck, the vacuum chuck can successfully grip a substrate via vacuum holes formed in the vacuum chuck.
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, as developed thus far, does not recite that the apparatus comprises a fan filter unit.
Tanaka that when keeping substrate processing equipment within a chamber (item 5 of Figure 1), a clean chamber interior atmosphere can be successfully maintained by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device 14 while clean, new air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit (FFU in Figure 1; Par. 0042).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka by having the chamber interior atmosphere maintained (including during a time after the nozzle discharges treatment liquid onto the substrate) in a clean state by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device while clean, new air (air comprises nitrogen, an inert gas) is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when keeping substrate processing equipment within a chamber, a clean chamber interior atmosphere can be successfully maintained by having used interior atmosphere air sucked out by an exhaust device while clean, new air is supplied into the chamber via a fan filter unit.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0313171 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2013/0333722 by Tanaka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0312678 by Morikawa.
With regard to claim 24, the combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka teaches that the stage 14 could be provided as a vacuum chuck that uses vacuum suction to affix the substrate to the stage (Par. 0025 of Higuchi).
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach that the vacuum chuck comprises vacuum holes.
Tanaka that when attempting to use a vacuum chuck to suction-grip a substrate onto the chuck, the vacuum chuck can successfully grip a substrate via vacuum holes formed in the vacuum chuck (Par. 0044 and 0068).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka such that the stage 14 is a vacuum chuck that comprises vacuum holes for suction-affixing the substrate to the chuck. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Tanaka, who teaches that when attempting to use a vacuum chuck to suction-grip a substrate onto the chuck, the vacuum chuck can successfully grip a substrate via vacuum holes formed in the vacuum chuck.
The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not teach that the vacuum chuck with vacuum holes also comprises pins.
Morikawa teaches that when attempting to load a substate onto a suction chuck, such loading can successfully be achieved with vertically-movable lift pins (one of which is illustrated as item 211 in Figure 6) attached to a spin chuck, wherein the pins can advantageously be used to initially support a substrate handed over from a transfer robot, wherein the pins then descend such that the substrate is placed onto the spin chuck, and wherein the negative pressure is then applied to the lower surface of the substrate in order to suction-hold the substrate on the spin chuck (Par. 0094, 0095, 0103, 0104, 0217, 0218).
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 apparatus of Higuchi in view of Tanaka such that the chuck comprises vertically-movable lift pins attached to the chuck such that a substrate can be initially received by the pins while the pins are in a raised position, wherein the pins can then lower the substrate onto the chuck, and wherein negative suction (applied via the vacuum holes of the chuck) is then applied to the substrate in order to affix the substrate to the chuck. The combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka does not provide much detail about how the substrate is initially placed onto the chuck, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Morikawa, who teaches that when attempting to load a substate onto chuck, such loading can successfully be achieved with vertically-movable lift pins attached to a chuck, wherein the pins can be used to initially support a substrate handed over from a transfer robot, wherein the pins then descend such that the substrate is placed onto the chuck, and wherein the negative pressure is then applied to the lower surface of the substrate in order to suction-hold the substrate on the chuck. In this combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa, when the substrate is supported by the lift pins, a portion of the substrate corresponding to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate not vertically overlapped with the first heater is also supported by the pins because that portion is part of the supported substrate.
The developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa does not explicitly recite that the added lift pins are positioned such that a plurality of vacuum holes are positioned between lift pins. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka in view of Morikawa such that a plurality of the vacuum holes are positioned between lift pins, as that plurality of vacuum holes could successfully contribute to the task of sucking the substrate onto the spin chuck while positioned between lift pins.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that “NONE of the limitations of the amended independent claims directed to the heater and the heating by the heater (as they are rewritten now) are intended use limitations”. This argument is not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, for example, applicant’s limitation specifying that uniform heating of the treatment liquid occurs is considered to specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is considered to be structurally capable of performing uniform heating of treatment liquid on the substrate due to the well-known fact that heat moves from hotter region(s) to cooler region(s), thus allowing the treatment liquid to be heated to a uniform temperature via heat from the heater 14A. Regarding claim 12, for example, applicant’s limitation specifying that uniform heating of the treatment liquid occurs is considered to specify intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the developed combination of Higuchi in view of Tanaka, the heater 14A is considered to be structurally capable of performing uniform heating of treatment liquid on the substrate due to the well-known fact that heat moves from hotter region(s) to cooler region(s), thus allowing the treatment liquid to be heated to a uniform temperature via heat from the heater 14A.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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
Prosecution Insights