DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 12/10/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 2,3 and 9 have been canceled. Claim 18 has been added. Claims 1,4-8 and 10-18 remain in the application with claim 17 having been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention detailed in paper filed 4/16/14. Therefore, claims 1,4-8,10-16 and 18 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 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.
Claims 1,4-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) further in combination with Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018).
Kimura (2016/0089696) teaches a substrate processing method of dipping a substrate into a rinse (claimed second liquid – claim 9) stored in a processing tank (20) (claimed treatment tank), supplying an organic solvent vapor into the chamber (11) surrounding the processing tank (20) to form an organic solvent vapor atmosphere inside the chamber including space above the processing tank (claimed first gas treating step – claim 1), elevating the substrate to the space above the processing tank to replace the rinse adhering to the surface of the substrate with an organic solvent, draining the rinse in the processing tank (claimed first discharging step of the second liquid which is the rinse – claim 10), moving the substrate into the processing tank, supplying water-repellent to the surface of the substrate having been moved into the processing tank (claimed water repellent treatment step – claim 1) , elevating the substrate above the processing tank, and supplying an organic solvent vapor to the substrate to remove unreacted water-repellent remaining on the substrate surface and (claimed spraying step of spraying a first liquid including organic solvent – claim 1) and drying the substrate with inert gas [0008].
Kimura (2016/0089696) fails to teach decompressing the chamber during the process.
Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) teaches a similar substrate treating method and device whereby a decompression step is performed inside of the chamber prior to forming a hydrophobic coating step, claimed water-repellency step (abstract). Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) teaches a first organic solvent atmosphere forming step of replacing the atmosphere in the chamber with an organic solvent after washing and before decompression [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura (2016/0089696) process to include decompressing step and pressurizing steps as evidenced by Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) with the expectation of producing coating with few contaminates and foreign matter in the water-repellent coating as well as substituting the water-repellent step by treating with vapors as opposed to a dipping step to reduce the amount of hydrophobic agent utilized [0010] or can be used as a liquid hydrophobic material [0070].
Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) fails to teach the second rinsing liquid to be in liquid phase and not gaseous phase and reducing particles thereon.
Koide et al. (10,453,729) teaches a substrate treatment method whereby after a first rinsing step and then forming a silylation process (claimed water-repellant) a second rinse process step is performed with a nozzle (23) which supplies a rinse liquid (abstract, col. 3, lines 7-40 and Fig. 6).
Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) teaches wafer cleaning method to reduce particle defects on a wafer surface using a cleaning process on a hydrophobic surface of the wafer (claimed water-repellant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) process to include rinsing with a rinse liquid and reducing particle defects as evidenced by Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) with the expectation of forming and improved coating thereon without particle defects.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the first dipping step is the cleaning step and the second liquid is chemical liquid cleaner [0047] while the second dipping step is the rinse step and the third liquid is water (claimed rinse) is performed in a processing tank (20) within the chamber (11) and the first treating gas, water-repellency and spraying is performed above the treatment tank as the substrate is elevated above the tank [0008] and removing unreacted water-repellency is also considered part of the water-repellency step and a mist of water-repellent is taught to be above the processing tank (20) [0036]. The nozzles (53 and 54) are utilized for the spraying step ([0029],[0033] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the substrate is elevated from the water-repellent coating in the processing tank while continuing supplying the IPA (organic solvent) vapors which meets the claimed vertically moved [0050] and teaches rocking the holding mechanism which meets the claimed “swung” [0054].
Regarding claims 5-8, both Kimura (2016/0089696) and Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) teaches IPA organic solvent atmosphere to remove unwanted and excess water-repellent or hydrophobic agent and then drying with inert gas but fails to teach a second organic solvent treatment. It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, the Examiner takes the position of performing a second organic solvent treatment would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality and unexpected results garnered especially when such second treatment can further remove unwanted/excess agents form the substrates.
Regarding the dilution or not of the organic vapor (claim 5), quantity (claim 7) and treatment time (claim 8) of the first and second gas treating step, there all are well-known processing parameters which would be optimized by one skilled in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the first liquid discharging step is the rinse step being removed prior to adding the water-repellency material to a drain line by opening valve (66) ([0008] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the liquid discharge step includes a liquid discharge tube (drain line) and this is connected to outside the chamber (11) with a valve (66) ([0031] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, organic solvent is supplied top remove the water-repellent material and inert gas is supplied for drying and this would meet the claimed “mixed gas” [0008].
Regarding claim 15, the atmosphere above the processing tank is organic solvent vapors.
Regarding claim 16, the third liquid is pure water [0048].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) further in combination with Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) further in combination with Chen et al. (6,468,362).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) further in combination with Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) are incorporated here.
Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) further in combination with Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) fail to teach spraying from both sides of the wafer substrate.
Chen et al. (6,468,362) teaches a method and apparatus for cleaning/drying hydrophobic wafers whereby the wafer is lifted above the dipping bath (203) and sprayed with nozzle (207) with a rinsing liquid (claimed second liquid) from both side of the wafer (abstract, Fig 3 and co. 4, lines 50-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) further in combination with Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) process to include spraying the second liquid (rinse liquid) to both sides of the wafer as evidenced by Chen et al. (6,468,362) with the expectation of more complete cleaning/rinsing as well as faster throughput.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach “spraying a liquid including liquid of organic solvent” and not a vapor(s).
Koide et al. (10,453,729) and Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) teach this as detailed above. Kimura (2016/0089696) teaches more than one nozzle while Examiner takes the position that the use of multiple nozzles vs one would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art to produce expected results of faster and more complete coating/rinsing using more than one nozzle absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Applicant argued Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) teach treating a plurality of substrates, a substrate in a vertical direction and treating substrate from a lateral direction while Koide et al. (10,453,729) teaches a single substrate, horizontal direction of substrate and treating from above the substrate not in a lateral direction and hence would be “difficult” to combine (arguments 1-5).
The Examiner agrees in part. However, it has been well settled that pointing out the differences between the reference and each individual reference is not sufficient to over come a rejection based on a combination of the references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. Furthermore, “difficulty” in the combination does not render the combination uncombineable as argued just that thoughtful consideration would be required for one skilled in the art and the Examiner has combined Koide et al. (10,453,729) for teaching using a liquid rinse vs a gaseous rinse and not for the particulars argued by Applicant as these are taught in the previous references as detailed in the rejection. Kimura (2016/0089696) teaches forming a vapor or mist [0036] and [0052] and hence would be suggestive of forming such for the second liquid of organic solvent.
Applicant argued Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) teaches wafer cleaning method to reduce particle defects on a wafer surface using a cleaning process on a hydrophobic surface of the wafer (claimed water-repellant) in a different way than that claimed.
The Examiner agrees; however, a combination rejection was applied, and the previous references teach supplying by spraying mist or droplets while Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) is relied upon for teaching removing/reducing particles thereon the substrate with the rinse.
Applicant argued Kimura (2016/0089696) in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (2018/0090343) teach treating a plurality of substrates, a substrate in a vertical direction and treating substrate from a lateral direction while Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) teaches a single substrate, horizontal direction of substrate and treating from above the substrate not in a lateral direction and hence would be “difficult” to combine (2nd set of arguments 1-4).
The Examiner agrees in part. However, it has been well settled that pointing out the differences between the reference and each individual reference is not sufficient to over come a rejection based on a combination of the references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. Furthermore, “difficulty” in the combination does not render the combination uncombineable as argued just that thoughtful consideration would be required for one skilled in the art and the Examiner has combined Verhaverbeke et al. (7,163,018) for teaching using a liquid rinse to reduce/remove particles generated on the substrate with a liquid rinse and not for the particulars argued by Applicant as these are taught in the previous references as detailed in the rejection. Kimura (2016/0089696) teaches forming a vapor or mist [0036] and [0052] and hence would be suggestive of forming such for the second liquid of organic solvent.
Applicant requested rejoinder of claim 17 as it requires all the limitations of amended claim 1 upon allowance of claim 1.
This would not be applicable as claim 1 and claim 17 are directed toward a method and a device respectively and the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process other than that claimed in the method claims. Therefore, the claims are not subject to rejoinder.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached on 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712