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 .
Citation Note
In this office action, when the examiner references applicant’s specification, the examiner is referencing paragraph numbers from applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2023/0170229).
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
The subject matter of claim 32 is discussed, for example, in Par. [0118] of applicant’s specification and partly illustrated in Figure 11. However, the specification as originally filed does not support applicant’s claim limitation specifying that “…the second liquid covering an entirety of the surface of the substrate upon a full rotation of the second nozzle over the center of the substrate”. Par. [0118] of applicant’s specification teaches rotating the nozzle while the nozzle is tilted, but applicant’s specification doesn’t discuss that the nozzle performs a “full” rotation.
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, 7-10, 25, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda.
With regard to claims 1 and 5, Aibara teaches a method of cleaning a wafer by supplying a film-forming liquid to a rotating wafer, forming a solid coating film from the film-forming liquid such that contaminants are entrapped in the solid coating film, supplying a stripping liquid to the solid coating film to strip the coating film and its entrapped contaminants from the wafer, and supplying a dissolving liquid to the stripped coating film in order to dissolve the stripped coating film such that the dissolved coating coat and contaminants can be removed from the rotating wafer (Abstract; Par. 0041-0045, 0050, 0054, 0060, 0061, 0066-0068, 0124-0130, 0150-0170, and 0193). Aibara’s method comprises a step of discharging the film-forming liquid (reads on first liquid) onto the wafer using a first nozzle (item 41_5 in Figure 4; Par. 0150 and 0151). Aibara’s method comprises evaporating an organic solvent from the film-forming liquid on the wafer in order to form the solid coating film such that contaminant particles are entrapped in the solid coating film (Par. 0152-0154), and this entrapping of contaminant particles in the solid coating film corresponds to applicant’s collecting particles. Aibara’s method comprises spraying deionized water (reads on second liquid) as the stripping liquid onto the solid coating film using a second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4), where the stripping liquid performs the role of stripping (reads on peeling) the solid coating film from the wafer (Par. 0160, 0161, 0168, and 0169). In the method of Aibara, isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution (reads on third liquid) is then discharged as the dissolving liquid onto the wafer from the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) such that the stripped coating film is rinsed from the wafer by the IPA (Par. 0126, 0128, 0160, 0168-0170). In the method of Aibara, all the nozzles (including second nozzle 41_1 in Figure 4) for discharging fluid onto the upper surface of the wafer are vertically above the substrate, as illustrated in Figure 4.
In Aibara, the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) is used to spray both the deionized water (reads on second liquid) and the IPA solution (reads on third liquid; Par. 0126, 0128, 0160, 0168-0170). Aibara does not teach using a third nozzle to spray the IPA solution used as the dissolving liquid.
Aibara teaches that when attempting to supply an IPA solution to the wafer, a separate nozzle dedicated to the supply of IPA solution can successfully be used to perform that role (Par. 0130 and 0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara such that the supply of IPA solution as the dissolving liquid is performed not by the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) but instead by a dedicated third nozzle, wherein the third nozzle is dedicated to the supply of IPA solution used as the dissolving liquid, and wherein the third nozzle is positioned vertically above the wafer. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Aibara, who teaches that when attempting to supply an IPA solution to the wafer, a separate nozzle dedicated to the supply of IPA solution can successfully be used to perform that role.
Aibara does not teach that the second nozzle is at a different height from both the first and third nozzles.
Higuchi teaches that when using a plurality of different nozzles to apply different fluids to a substrate, each nozzle can be successfully held in space and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm (Par. 0159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara by having each of the first nozzle, the second nozzle, and the third nozzle mounted on and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm – that is, that the first nozzle is mounted on a first nozzle arm, the second nozzle is mounted on a second nozzle arm, and the third nozzle is mounted on a third nozzle arm. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Higuchi teaches that when using a plurality of different nozzles to apply different fluids to a substrate, each nozzle can be successfully held in space and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi does not teach that the second nozzle is at a different height from both the first and third nozzles.
Kaneko illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid (Par. 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi such that the second nozzle is positioned above the first and third nozzles while the second nozzle discharges its liquid onto the wafer and the first and third nozzles are not discharging any of their liquids. In this combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko, all the nozzles for discharging fluid onto the upper surface of the wafer are still vertically above the wafer. In this combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko, the second nozzle has to supply its discharged liquid downwards towards the wafer, and the second nozzle could successfully perform that downward-aimed discharge while positioned above the first and third nozzles (while the first and third nozzles are not discharging their liquids). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kaneko, who illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid. This illustration of Kaneko suggests that one nozzle can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle that is not then discharging its liquid.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko does not teach that discharging the deionized water from the second nozzle involves spraying the deionized water.
However, Aibara teaches that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid can be supplied in a mist state (Par. 0193 of Aibara).
Okuda teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air (Par. 0295, 0296, and 0301-0304, 0310-0311).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko such that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid is supplied as a mist using a nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air. Aibara teaches that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid can be supplied in a mist state, but the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko does not teach that such mist is sprayed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Okuda, who teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, and wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air.
With regard to claim 2, in the developed combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the water is sprayed as a mist (reads on aerosol) from the second nozzle (the structure of which is illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15).
With regard to claim 3, in the developed combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the water is sprayed from the second nozzle (the structure of which is illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15) as a mist using compressed air.
With regard to claim 4, in the developed combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the direction of movement of water is changed by compressed air, as the second nozzle (the structure of which is illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15) has a stream of water impacted by a stream of compressed air such that a spray of mist is sprayed by the second nozzle.
With regard to claim 7, in the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the wafer is rotated while the deionized water is sprayed thereon as the stripping liquid (Par. 0160, 0161, 0168, and 0169 of Aibara).
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, as developed thus far, does not specify that the second nozzle is tilted with respect to a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the wafer.
Okuda teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle (illustrated as item 1025 in Okuda’s Figure 2) that is tilted with respect to a direction perpendicular to a length of the wafer (Par. 0176, 0177, 0187, 0199, 0200, and 0283).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the second nozzle is tilted with respect to a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the wafer. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Okuda, who teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle (illustrated as item 1025 in Okuda’s Figure 2) that is tilted with respect to a direction perpendicular to a length of the wafer. In the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the point of the water sprayed by the second nozzle is to strip the solid coating film, and water mist ejected at such an angle could successfully land on the coating film and perform its task of stripping the coating film.
With regard to claim 9, in the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the film-forming liquid (reads on first liquid) comprises a mixture of polymer and a volatile component (Par. 0060, 0061, 0066-0068, and 0152-0154 of Aibara).
With regard to claim 10, in the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the dissolving liquid includes IPA (Par. 0128 and 0168-0170 of Aibara).
With regard to claim 25, in the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the supplying of the first liquid onto the wafer can be considered to result in the formation of a coating film that collects particles, and in order to solidify this formed coating film into the solid coating film (that is later stripped from the wafer) of Aibara, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches heating the coating film of the first liquid (Par. 0211, 0218-0223 of Aibara).
With regard to claim 29, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not recite (in writing) that the first nozzle and the third nozzle are at the same height as each other. However, when Aibara teaches ejecting the IPA solution (corresponds to applicant’s third liquid), Aibara teaches doing so from a nozzle that is illustrated in Aibara’s Figure 4 as having the same height (relative to the water) as the nozzle used to eject the film-forming liquid (corresponds to applicant’s first liquid; Par. 0118, 0126, and 0135), and the Aibara reference is therefore considered to suggest having the height of the nozzle used to eject the IPA solution be the same as the height of the nozzle used to ejected the film-forming liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the first and third nozzles are at the same height as each other, as Aibara is considered to suggest having the height of the nozzle used to eject the IPA solution be the same as the height of the nozzle used to ejected the film-forming liquid. Further motivation for having the first and third nozzles at the same height is provided by the fact that the purpose of each nozzle is to supply (in separate steps) their respective liquids to the surface of the wafer, and the first and third nozzles could successfully dispense their respective liquids while at the same height (with respect to the wafer).
With regard to claim 33, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches having rotation of the wafer not occur (see Par. 0154 of Aibara) after film-forming liquid is supplied to the wafer and allowed to diffuse and distribute over the substrate in a way that does not violate the laws of nature. Later, in the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, rotation of the substrate is used to spread the deionized water (which corresponds to applicant’s second liquid) as the stripping liquid across the wafer due to centrifugal force created by the rotation (Par. 0160). The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not explicitly recite that this rotation of the wafer starts before the deionized water is sprayed onto the wafer. However, in the art of processing semiconductor wafers, it is well known that – when using wafer rotation to spread (via centrifugal force) dispensed liquid across the surface of the wafer – such rotation-induced spreading can be successfully achieved by starting the rotation of the wafer before the liquid starts to be dispensed onto the wafer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda by starting the rotation (after the non-rotation discussed in Par. 0154 of Aibara) of the wafer before the stripping liquid starts to be dispensed onto the wafer. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of processing semiconductor wafers, it is well known that – when using wafer rotation to spread (via centrifugal force) dispensed liquid across the surface of the wafer – such rotation-induced spreading can be successfully achieved by starting the rotation of the wafer before the liquid starts to be dispensed onto the wafer.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda.
With regard to claim 11, Aibara teaches a method of cleaning a wafer by supplying a film-forming liquid to a rotating wafer, forming a solid coating film from the film-forming liquid such that contaminants are entrapped in the solid coating film, supplying a stripping liquid to the solid coating film to strip the coating film and its entrapped contaminants from the wafer, and supplying a dissolving liquid to the stripped coating film in order to dissolve the stripped coating film such that the dissolved coating coat and contaminants can be removed from the rotating wafer (Abstract; Par. 0041-0045, 0050, 0054, 0060, 0061, 0066-0068, 0124-0130, 0150-0170, and 0193). Aibara’s method comprises a step of discharging the film-forming liquid (reads on first liquid) onto the wafer using a first nozzle (item 41_5 in Figure 4; Par. 0150 and 0151). Aibara’s method comprises evaporating an organic solvent from the film-forming liquid on the wafer in order to form the solid coating film such that contaminant particles are entrapped in the solid coating film (Par. 0152-0154), and this entrapping of contaminant particles in the solid coating film corresponds to applicant’s collecting particles. Aibara’s method comprises spraying deionized water (reads on second liquid) as the stripping liquid onto the solid coating film using a second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4), where the stripping liquid performs the role of stripping (reads on peeling) the solid coating film from the wafer (Par. 0160, 0161, 0168, and 0169). In the method of Aibara, isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution (reads on third liquid) is then discharged as the dissolving liquid onto the wafer from the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) such that the stripped coating film is rinsed from the wafer by the IPA (Par. 0126, 0128, 0160, 0168-0170). In the method of Aibara, all the nozzles (including second nozzle 41_1 in Figure 4) for discharging fluid onto the upper surface of the wafer are vertically above the substrate, as illustrated in Figure 4.
In Aibara, the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) is used to spray both the deionized water (reads on second liquid) and the IPA solution (reads on third liquid; Par. 0126, 0128, 0160, 0168-0170). Aibara does not teach using a third nozzle to spray the IPA solution used as the dissolving liquid.
Aibara teaches that when attempting to supply an IPA solution to the wafer, a separate nozzle dedicated to the supply of IPA solution can successfully be used to perform that role (Par. 0130 and 0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara such that the supply of IPA solution as the dissolving liquid is performed not by the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) but instead by a dedicated third nozzle, wherein the third nozzle is dedicated to the supply of IPA solution used as the dissolving liquid, and wherein the third nozzle is positioned vertically above the wafer. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Aibara, who teaches that when attempting to supply an IPA solution to the wafer, a separate nozzle dedicated to the supply of IPA solution can successfully be used to perform that role.
Aibara does not teach that the second nozzle is at a different height from both the first and third nozzles.
Higuchi teaches that when using a plurality of different nozzles to apply different fluids to a substrate, each nozzle can be successfully held in space and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm (Par. 0159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara by having each of the first nozzle, the second nozzle, and the third nozzle mounted on and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm – that is, that the first nozzle is mounted on a first nozzle arm, the second nozzle is mounted on a second nozzle arm, and the third nozzle is mounted on a third nozzle arm. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Higuchi teaches that when using a plurality of different nozzles to apply different fluids to a substrate, each nozzle can be successfully held in space and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi does not teach that the second nozzle is at a different height from both the first and third nozzles.
Kaneko illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid (Par. 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi such that the second nozzle is positioned above the first and third nozzles while the second nozzle discharges its liquid onto the wafer and the first and third nozzles are not discharging any of their liquids. In this combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko, all the nozzles for discharging fluid onto the upper surface of the wafer are still vertically above the wafer. In this combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko, the second nozzle has to supply its discharged liquid downwards towards the wafer, and the second nozzle could successfully perform that downward-aimed discharge while positioned above the first and third nozzles (while the first and third nozzles are not discharging their liquids). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kaneko, who illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid. This illustration of Kaneko suggests that one nozzle can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle that is not then discharging its liquid.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko does not teach that discharging the deionized water from the second nozzle involves spraying the deionized water.
However, Aibara teaches that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid can be supplied in a mist state (Par. 0193 of Aibara).
Okuda teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air (Par. 0295, 0296, and 0301-0304, 0310-0311).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko such that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid is supplied as a mist using a nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air. Aibara teaches that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid can be supplied in a mist state, but the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko does not teach that such mist is sprayed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Okuda, who teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, and wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air.
With regard to claim 26, in the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the supplying of the first liquid onto the wafer can be considered to result in the formation of a coating film that collects particles, and in order to solidify this formed coating film into the solid coating film (that is later stripped from the wafer) of Aibara, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches heating the coating film of the first liquid (Par. 0211, 0218-0223 of Aibara).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0247835 by Lee.
With regard to claim 23, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches using a recovery cup (item 50 in Aibara’s Figure 4) for collecting liquid scattered off of the rotating wafer (Par. 0142 of Aibara).
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not teach that the first, second, and third liquids are separately recovered by the cup.
Lee teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers (items 322, 324, and 326 in Figure 3), wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step (Par. 0083-0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the recovery cup is a cup of the type taught by Lee, wherein the cup comprises three different recovery containers, wherein the cup (and its recovery containers) can be vertically moved such that each recovery container can be aligned to capture its corresponding fluid when that particular fluid is being used in wafer-processing, and wherein each recovery container collects its own particular fluid (that is, a first recovery container is configured to collect first liquid scattered off the wafer, a second recovery container is configured to collect second liquid scattered off the substrate, and the third recovery container is configured to collect the third liquid scattered off the substrate) such that that particular fluid can be separately collected for recycling. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers, wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0247835 by Lee.
With regard to claim 24, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches using a recovery cup (item 50 in Aibara’s Figure 4) for collecting liquid scattered off of the rotating wafer (Par. 0142 of Aibara).
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not teach that the first, second, and third liquids are separately recovered by the cup.
Lee teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers (items 322, 324, and 326 in Figure 3), wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step (Par. 0083-0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the recovery cup is a cup of the type taught by Lee, wherein the cup comprises three different recovery containers, wherein the cup (and its recovery containers) can be vertically moved such that each recovery container can be aligned to capture its corresponding fluid when that particular fluid is being used in wafer-processing, and wherein each recovery container collects its own particular fluid (that is, a first recovery container is configured to collect first liquid scattered off the wafer, a second recovery container is configured to collect second liquid scattered off the substrate, and the third recovery container is configured to collect the third liquid scattered off the substrate) such that that particular fluid can be separately collected for recycling. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers, wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0247835 by Lee.
With regard to claim 27, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches using a recovery cup (item 50 in Figure 4 of Aibara) for collecting liquid scattered off of the rotating wafer (Par. 0142 of Aibara).
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not teach adjusting the height of a wafer support or the recovery cup.
Lee teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers (items 322, 324, and 326 in Figure 3), wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step (Par. 0083-0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the recovery cup is a cup of the type taught by Lee, wherein the cup comprises three different recovery containers, wherein the cup (and its recovery containers) is vertically moved such that each recovery container can be aligned to capture its corresponding fluid when that particular fluid is being used in wafer-processing, and wherein each recovery container collects its own particular fluid (that is, a first recovery container is configured to collect first liquid scattered off the wafer, a second recovery container is configured to collect second liquid scattered off the substrate, and the third recovery container is configured to collect the third liquid scattered off the substrate) such that that particular fluid can be separately collected for recycling. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers, wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0247835 by Lee.
With regard to claim 28, the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda teaches using a recovery cup (item 50 in Figure 4 of Aibara) for collecting liquid scattered off of the rotating wafer (Par. 0142 of Aibara).
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not teach adjusting the height of a wafer support or the recovery cup.
Lee teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers (items 322, 324, and 326 in Figure 3), wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step (Par. 0083-0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the recovery cup is a cup of the type taught by Lee, wherein the cup comprises three different recovery containers, wherein the cup (and its recovery containers) is vertically moved such that each recovery container can be aligned to capture its corresponding fluid when that particular fluid is being used in wafer-processing, and wherein each recovery container collects its own particular fluid (that is, a first recovery container is configured to collect first liquid scattered off the wafer, a second recovery container is configured to collect second liquid scattered off the substrate, and the third recovery container is configured to collected the third liquid scattered off the substrate) such that that particular fluid can be separately collected for recycling. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when applying different fluids to a wafer, a recovery cup can be vertically-movable and can comprise a plurality of recovery containers, wherein each recovery container is used to collect an individual fluid such that the individual fluid can be recovered for recycling, and wherein the recovery cup is vertically moved to arrange a corresponding recovery container for the given fluid be used in a given wafer-processing step.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0035561 by Aibara in view of U.S. 2017/0236703 by Higuchi in view of U.S. 2012/0260947 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2004/0206452 by Okuda in view of U.S. 2007/0169793 by Shimada in evidence of U.S. 2006/0260661 by Verhaverbeke.
With regard to claim 6, Aibara teaches a method of cleaning a wafer by supplying a film-forming liquid to a rotating wafer, forming a solid coating film from the film-forming liquid such that contaminants are entrapped in the solid coating film, supplying a stripping liquid to the solid coating film to strip the coating film and its entrapped contaminants from the wafer, and supplying a dissolving liquid to the stripped coating film in order to dissolve the stripped coating film such that the dissolved coating coat and contaminants can be removed from the rotating wafer (Abstract; Par. 0041-0045, 0050, 0054, 0060, 0061, 0066-0068, 0124-0130, 0150-0170, and 0193). Aibara’s method comprises a step of discharging the film-forming liquid (reads on first liquid) onto the wafer using a first nozzle (item 41_5 in Figure 4; Par. 0150 and 0151). Aibara’s method comprises evaporating an organic solvent from the film-forming liquid on the wafer in order to form the solid coating film such that contaminant particles are entrapped in the solid coating film (Par. 0152-0154), and this entrapping of contaminant particles in the solid coating film corresponds to applicant’s collecting particles. Aibara’s method comprises spraying deionized water (reads on second liquid) as the stripping liquid onto the solid coating film using a second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4), where the stripping liquid performs the role of stripping (reads on peeling) the solid coating film from the wafer (Par. 0160, 0161, 0168, and 0169). In the method of Aibara, isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution (reads on third liquid) is then discharged as the dissolving liquid onto the wafer from the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) such that the stripped coating film is rinsed from the wafer by the IPA (Par. 0126, 0128, 0160, 0168-0170). In the method of Aibara, all the nozzles (including second nozzle 41_1 in Figure 4) for discharging fluid onto the upper surface of the wafer are vertically above the substrate, as illustrated in Figure 4.
In Aibara, the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) is used to spray both the deionized water (reads on second liquid) and the IPA solution (reads on third liquid; Par. 0126, 0128, 0160, 0168-0170). Aibara does not teach using a third nozzle to spray the IPA solution used as the dissolving liquid.
Aibara teaches that when attempting to supply an IPA solution to the wafer, a separate nozzle dedicated to the supply of IPA solution can successfully be used to perform that role (Par. 0130 and 0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara such that the supply of IPA solution as the dissolving liquid is performed not by the second nozzle (item 41_1 in Figure 4) but instead by a dedicated third nozzle, wherein the third nozzle is dedicated to the supply of IPA solution used as the dissolving liquid, and wherein the third nozzle is positioned vertically above the wafer. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Aibara, who teaches that when attempting to supply an IPA solution to the wafer, a separate nozzle dedicated to the supply of IPA solution can successfully be used to perform that role.
Aibara does not teach that the second nozzle is at a different height from both the first and third nozzles.
Higuchi teaches that when using a plurality of different nozzles to apply different fluids to a substrate, each nozzle can be successfully held in space and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm (Par. 0159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara by having each of the first nozzle, the second nozzle, and the third nozzle mounted on and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm – that is, that the first nozzle is mounted on a first nozzle arm, the second nozzle is mounted on a second nozzle arm, and the third nozzle is mounted on a third nozzle arm. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Higuchi teaches that when using a plurality of different nozzles to apply different fluids to a substrate, each nozzle can be successfully held in space and moved by its own dedicated nozzle arm.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi does not teach that the second nozzle is at a different height from both the first and third nozzles.
Kaneko illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid (Par. 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi such that the second nozzle is positioned above the first and third nozzles while the second nozzle discharges its liquid onto the wafer and the first and third nozzles are not discharging any of their liquids. In this combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko, all the nozzles for discharging fluid onto the upper surface of the wafer are still vertically above the wafer. In this combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko, the second nozzle has to supply its discharged liquid downwards towards the wafer, and the second nozzle could successfully perform that downward-aimed discharge while positioned above the first and third nozzles (while the first and third nozzles are not discharging their liquids). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kaneko, who illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid. This illustration of Kaneko suggests that one nozzle can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle that is not then discharging its liquid.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko does not teach that discharging the deionized water from the second nozzle involves spraying the deionized water.
However, Aibara teaches that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid can be supplied in a mist state (Par. 0193 of Aibara).
Okuda teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air (Par. 0295, 0296, and 0301-0304, 0310-0311).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko such that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid is supplied as a mist using a nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air. Aibara teaches that the deionized water used as the stripping liquid can be supplied in a mist state, but the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko does not teach that such mist is sprayed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Okuda, who teaches that when attempting to supply deionized water as a mist to a rotating wafer, this can successfully be accomplished with a deionized-water-mist-spraying nozzle of the type illustrated in Okuda’s Figure 15, wherein the nozzle is scanned across the rotating wafer and sprays a mist of deionized water onto the wafer, and wherein the mist is produced by the nozzle by impacting water with compressed air.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda does not teach adjusting a height of the second nozzle according to a size of the substrate.
However, Okuda’s Figure 15 illustrates the mist-spraying nozzle as having a divergent spray pattern.
Shimada teaches that when cleaning a wafer with a divergent spray pattern of water mist from a nozzle, the distance of the nozzle from the substrate is a result-effective variable because the distance affects (due to the divergent nature of the spray) the density of the water mist at the cross-section of the divergent spray pattern where the divergent spray pattern impacts the wafer (Par. 0097 and Figures 4-5 of Shimada).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda such that the height of the second nozzle (that is, the mist-spraying nozzle) is optimized relative to the wafer, as the height is a result-effective variable that affects the density of the water sprayed onto the wafer as the second nozzle scans across the surface of the wafer. In the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda, the point of the sprayed water is to strip the solid coating film, and optimizing the density of water would ensure that enough water is supplied to the wafer to effectively strip the solid coating film without wasting water. Okuda’s Figure 15 illustrates the mist-spraying nozzle as having a divergent spray pattern, and Shimada teaches that when cleaning a wafer with a divergent spray pattern of water mist from a nozzle, the distance of the nozzle from the substrate is a result-effective variable because the distance affects (due to the divergent nature of the spray) the density of the water mist at the cross-section of the divergent spray pattern where the divergent spray pattern impacts the wafer.
In the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda in view of Shimada, the height of the second nozzle (the mist-spraying nozzle) relative to the wafer is optimized in order to optimize the distance between the second nozzle (which ejects a divergent spray pattern) and the wafer.
The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda in view of Shimada does not recite adjusting the height of the second nozzle based on a size of the substrate. However, it is known in the art of semiconductor wafers that wafers can have different thickness dimensions (see Par. 0083 of Verhaverbeke, for example), and since the thickness dimension of a wafer can affect the distance between the top of the wafer and the nozzle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda in view of Shimada by having the second nozzle be height-adjustable and by adjusting the height of the second nozzle in response to the thickness of the treated substrate in order to maintain the optimized distance between the second nozzle and the top of the wafer, as the thickness size of a wafer can affect the distance between the wafer and the nozzle.
Claim 32 Discussion
Claim 32 has been rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). It is noted that the examiner does not have a prior-art-based rejection for claim 32. However, since the examiner can’t predict how applicant might choose to amend the claims in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the examiner isn’t yet ready to say that claim 32 necessarily contains allowable subject matter. With regard to claim 32, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda fails to teach applicant’s step of rotating, while the second liquid is being discharged, the second nozzle used for peeling the coating film over a center of the substrate while a first terminal end of a nozzle supporting portion that holds the second nozzle over the center of the substrate is fixed in place over the center of the substrate, the second liquid covering an entirety of the surface of the substrate upon a full rotation of the second nozzle over the center of the substrate. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko in view of Okuda to arrive at the method recited by claim 32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points out that “applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite, in part, ‘wherein, when positioned above the substrate to respectively discharge the first liquid, second liquid, and third liquid, the first nozzle used for forming the coating film and the third nozzle used for rinsing the coating film are positioned to be lower than the second nozzle used for peeling the coating film with respect to the substrate’.” Applicant amended claims 6 and 11 in a similar manner. On page 8 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “as clearly shown in FIG. 12 of Kaneko, nozzle 40 is only lower than nozzle 54 when nozzle 40 has been retreated to outside of the outer circumference of substrate 2, which also in direct contrast to the requirement of ‘when positioned above the substrate to respectively discharge the first liquid, second liquid, and third liquid,’ as required by the above-referenced limitation of the amended independent claims.” However, it is noted that saying that the nozzles are “above” the substrate is not the same as reciting that the nozzles are above the substrate while vertically overlapping the substrate. Applicant appear to think that the new claim amendments to the independent claims recite that the nozzles vertically overlap the substrate, but that is not the case. Applicant’s argument is thus not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As discussed in the above obviousness rejections, the prior art combinations do have the nozzles arrange “above” the wafer.
Applicant argues the following:
In particular, paragraph [0098] of Kaneko teaches that nozzle 40 (used by the Office to teach the claimed lower positioned first and third nozzles) is actually a substrate cleaning nozzle 40 that discharges a cleaning solution while nozzle 54 (used by the Office to teach the claimed higher positioned second nozzle) is actually a rinsing solution discharging nozzle. Said another way, Kaneko actually teaches the direct opposite of the above-referenced limitation where Kaneko’s rinsing solution discharging nozzle 54 (i.e., the equivalent of Applicant’s claimed third nozzle used for rinsing the coating film) is positioned higher than the substrate cleaning nozzle 40 (i.e., the equivalent of Applicant’s claimed second nozzle used for peeling the coating film).
This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s rejection is not based on the examiner matching a rinsing nozzle of Aibara to a rinsing nozzle of Kaneko, and the examiner’s rejection is not based on the examiner matching a cleaning nozzle of Aibara to a cleaning nozzle of Kaneko. The wafer processing method of Aibara is not the same as the wafer processing method of Kaneko. The Kaneko reference is merely used to teach the following: Kaneko illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid (Par. 0098).
This is a very simply teaching lifted out of the Kaneko reference, and this simple teaching is used to make a simple point – namely, this Kaneko teaching suggests that one nozzle can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle that is not then discharging its liquid. A simple teaching from Kaneko is used to make a simply point. As discussed, the examiner’s rejection is not based on the examiner matching a rinsing nozzle of Aibara to a rinsing nozzle of Kaneko, and the examiner’s rejection is not based on the examiner matching a cleaning nozzle of Aibara to a cleaning nozzle of Kaneko.
On page 9 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the examiner is picking-and-choosing from Kaneko to an unacceptable extent, and applicant argues that the examiner is stitching together discrete teachings from different prior art references in an unacceptable manner. The examiner does not agree. When the examiner, for example, uses the teachings of Kaneko to modify the teachings of Aibara in view of Higuchi, the examiner is not required to somehow perfectly blend the entirety of the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi with the entirety of the method of Kaneko. Kaneko and Aibara, after all, teach differing methods; they don’t teach the same method. It is acceptable for the examiner to take a teaching from Kaneko and use it to modify the combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi. It would be a problem if the teachings of Kaneko somehow “teach away” from the examiner’s proposed combination of references, but that is not the case here. The teaching of Kaneko do not teach or imply that the examiner’s combination of Aibara in view of Higuchi in view of Kaneko is doomed to failure or inefficiency.
On page 9 of applicant’s arguments, applicant points out that Kanko “only teaches the use and positioning of two nozzles”, not how three nozzles can be arranged. This line of argument is not persuasive. Again, the Kaneko reference is merely used to teach the following: Kaneko illustrates in Figure 12 that when using different nozzles in a method to supply liquids to a wafer, one nozzle (item 54 in Figure 12) can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle (item 40 in Figure 12) that is not then discharging its liquid (Par. 0098). This is a very simply teaching lifted out of the Kaneko reference, and this simple teaching is used to make a simple point – namely, this Kaneko teaching suggests that one nozzle can successfully supply its liquid vertically downward towards the wafer while at a separation vertical height (separation vertical height being the distance between the top of the wafer and the bottom of the nozzle) greater than another nozzle that is not then discharging its liquid. A simple teaching from Kaneko is used to make a simply point. Yes, the method of Kaneko is different from the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi, but that does change the fact that Kaneko does teach the above-discussed simple teaching and that this simple teaching can be used to modify the method of Aibara in view of Higuchi.
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