Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a processing vessel” in Line 3 shall be “the processing vessel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,5-8, 12, 13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2019/0051519 to Tsukano in view of the US Patent 8,846,816 to Diaz, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2012/0247516 to Sato.
In Reference to Claim 1
Tsukano discloses substrate processing apparatus configured to dry a substrate, a liquid being accumulated on a front surface of the substrate, by using a supercritical drying technique, the substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing vessel (Fig. 4, 301) having an opening (Fig. 4, 312) through which the substrate is carried into or carried out of the processing vessel; a cover body (Fig. 4, 315) configured to be moved and configured to close the opening of the processing vessel; a cover body moving mechanism (Fig. 4, the cover body 315 can move as indicated by arrow) configured to move the cover body between a closed position where the cover body closes the opening and an open position where the cover body opens the opening; a substrate holder (Fig. 4, 316) configured to horizontally hold the substrate with the front surface facing upwards in the processing vessel; a fluid supply device (As showed in Fig. 4, fluid supply pipes) configured to supply a processing fluid in a supercritical state and a processing fluid in a gas state composed of a same material as the processing fluid in the supercritical state to the processing vessel, the fluid supply device comprising at least one supply line and at least one flow control device; and a controller (Fig. 7, 4) configured to control the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid in the supercritical state is supplied to the processing vessel in a first state in which the substrate is held by the substrate holder within the processing vessel and the cover body is located at the closed position, and such that the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel in a second state in which the substrate is not held by the substrate holder within the processing vessel and the cover body is located at the open position, wherein a first fluid supply (Fig. 4, 24) configured to send the processing fluid in the supercritical state and a second fluid supply (Fig. 4, 43) configured to send the processing fluid in the gas state which is the same material as the processing fluid sent from the first fluid supply are connected to the fluid supply device, and the controller controls the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid is supplied to the processing vessel from the first fluid supply in the first state and the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel from the second fluid supply in the second state.
Tsukano does not teach continuing supply gas when the cleaning chamber is open.
Diaz teaches the fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel in the second state in which the substrate is not held by the substrate holder within the processing vessel and the cover body is located at the open position (Fig. 3C. Step 5334)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Diaz into the design of Tsukano. Doing so, the step of purging of Diaz is integrated into the process of Tsukano. Both inventions of Tsukano and Diaz are in the same field of endeavor, Diaz teaches providing a purge gas into the chamber before or after treating process from the chamber. So the quality of the process is improved.
The combination of Tsukano and Diaz as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the same processing is used in the drying process.
Sato teaches the same kind the material can be supplied to the cleaning chamber in supercritical state as well as the gas state. (Abstract of Sato)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Sato into the combination of Tsukano and Diaz as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the same kind of material being supplied to the cleaning chamber during the process. Both inventions of Tsukano and Sato are in the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches a method of reducing the operational cost since the same kind of material is used.
In Reference to Claim 5
Tsukano discloses the controller (Fig. 7, 4) controls the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid is supplied to the processing vessel after the first state is created by carrying the substrate into the Page 3 of 14 processing vessel and closing the cover body (Fig. 4, 315) after the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel in the second state.
In Reference to Claim 6
Tsukano discloses the processing vessel comprises a first discharge unit3 (Fig. 5, 63) configured to discharge the processing fluid toward the opening from a position far from the opening (As showed in Fig, .5), the first discharge unit is connected to the at least one supply line, and the controller controls the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel via the first discharge unit in the second state. (Paragraph 102, since Tsukano teaches supply lines 63 and 63 are connected together, fluid are delivered via the same supply lines)
In Reference to Claim 7
Tsukano discloses a fluid collecting unit (Fig. 5, 314) disposed near the opening,( As showed in Fig. 5) and configured to suck and collect the processing fluid in the gas state flown out or to be flown out from the opening after being supplied to the processing vessel.
In Reference to Claim 8
Tsukano discloses wherein the processing vessel is configured to allow the substrate to be carried in or out in horizontally through the opening (Fig. 5, as showed), the fluid collecting unit (Fig, 5, 314) is disposed below a movement trajectory of the substrate (As showed in Fig. 5) when the substrate is carried in or out of the processing vessel, and the processing fluid in the gas state flown out from the opening is flown downwards into the fluid collecting unit.
In Reference to Claim 12
Tsukano discloses the cover body and the substrate holder (AS showed in Fig. 4) are coupled as one body, and the substrate held by the substrate holder is carried into the processing vessel by moving the cover body to the closed position.
In Reference to Claim 13
Tsukano discloses a direction in which the substrate held by the substrate holder is carried into the processing vessel is a horizontal direction. (As showed in Fig. 5)
In Reference to Claim 15
Tsukano discloses a fluid collecting unit (Fig. 5, 314) disposed around the opening, and configured to collect the processing fluid in the gas state flown out from the opening after being supplied to the processing vessel, when the cover body is located at the open position.
In Reference to Claim 16
Tsukano discloses a substrate processing method performed by a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing vessel having an opening through which a substrate is carried into or out of a processing vessel (Fig. 4, 301); a cover body (Fig. 4, 315) configured to be moved and configured to close the opening of the processing vessel; a substrate holder (Fig. 4, 316) configured to hold the substrate horizontally with a front surface of the substrate facing upwards; a fluid supply device (Fig. 4, 24) configured to supply a processing fluid in a supercritical state and a fluid in a gas state composed of a same material as the processing fluid in the supercritical state to the processing vessel, the fluid supply device comprising at least one supply line and at least one flow control device, wherein a first fluid supply (Fig. 4, 24) configured to send the processing fluid in the supercritical state and a second fluid supply (Fig. 4, 43) configured to send the processing fluid in the gas state, the substrate processing method comprising: controlling the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid is supplied to the processing vessel from the first fluid supply in the first state, thereby flowing the processing fluid in the supercritical state in the processing vessel in a state that the substrate on the front surface of which a liquid is accumulated is carried in the processing vessel by the substrate holder, and replacing the liquid with the processing fluid in the supercritical state; and controlling the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel from the second fluid supply in the second state, thereby supplying, before the flowing of the processing fluid in the supercritical state and the replacing of the liquid with the processing fluid in the supercritical state, a purge gas into the processing vessel to turn an inside of the processing vessel into a purge gas atmosphere, when the cover body keeps the opening opened to carry the substrate into the processing vessel, wherein the purge gas and the processing fluid are composed of a same material and have different phases.
Tsukano does not teach a purging gas while the substrate is removed.
Diaz teaches the fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel in the second state in which the substrate is not held by the substrate holder within the processing vessel and the cover body is located at the open position (Fig. 3C. Step 5334)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Diaz into the design of Tsukano. Doing so, the step of purging of Diaz is integrated into the process of Tsukano. Both inventions of Tsukano and Diaz are in the same field of endeavor, Diaz teaches providing a purge gas into the chamber before or after treating process from the chamber. So the quality of the process is improved.
The combination of Tsukano and Diaz as applied to Claim 16 does not teach the same processing is used in the drying process.
Sato teaches the same kind the material can be supplied to the cleaning chamber in supercritical state as well as the gas state. (Abstract of Sato)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Sato into the combination of Tsukano and Diaz as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the same kind of material being supplied to the cleaning chamber during the process. Both inventions of Tsukano and Sato are in the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches a method of reducing the operational cost since the same kind of material is used.
In Reference to Claim 17
Tsukano discloses the substrate is carried into the processing vessel (Fig. 4, 301).
Tsukano does not teach purge before and after the process.
Diaz teaches the substrate is carried into the process vessel the cover body is closed after a supply of the purge gas into the processing vessel is stopped, and then, the flowing of the processing fluid in the supercritical state and the replacing of the liquid with the processing fluid in the supercritical state are performed (Step 5331/5334)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Diaz into the design of Tsukano. Doing so, the step of purging of Diaz is integrated into the process of Tsukano. Both inventions of Tsukano and Diaz are in the same field of endeavor, Diaz teaches providing a purge gas into the chamber before and after treating process from the chamber. Do the quality of the process is improved.
In Reference to Claim 19
Tsukano discloses the supplying of the purge gas comprises sucking (Fig. 5, 314) and collecting the purge gas flown out or to be flown out from the opening (Fig. 5, as showed) after being supplied into the processing vessel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2019/0355574 to Kanno.
In Reference to Claim 3
Tsukano discloses supply fluid in a first state and a second state.
The combination of Tsukano and Diaz as applied to Claim 1 does not teach two different supply system.
Kanno teaches the at least one supply line included in the fluid supply device comprises a gas line (Fig. 4, 42) connected to the second fluid supply (Fig. 4, 43) and a first supply line (Fig. 4, 22) through which the processing fluid sent from the first fluid supply in the first state is supplied to the processing vessel, and the gas line is connected to the first supply line, and the controller controls the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel from the second fluid supply via the gas line and the first supply line in the second state.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kanno into the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in two separated supplying system being incorporated into the system of Tsukano, Both inventions of Tsukano and Kanno are in the same field of endeavor, Kanno teaches a method of removing particle remaining on the surface of the substrate after the drying of the substrate with a predictable result of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukano, Diaz, and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 6,228,563 to Starvo.
In Reference to Claim 9
The combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 1 teaches the fluid connecting unit at the opening position.
The combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the curtain gas discharge unit.
Starov teaches a curtain gas discharge unit (Fig. 4A, 160) configured to discharge the processing fluid near the opening to form a gas curtain configured to suppress exterior air from being introduced into the opening.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Starov into the combination of Tsukanok Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a curtain gas discharge unit being positioned at the outer side of the opening as being taught by Starov. Both inventions of Tsukano and Starov are in the same field of endeavor, Starov teaches the method of preventing of minimizing the diffusion of the solvent out of the chamber. So the environment is protected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20180055731 to Ohno.
In Reference to Claim 11
Tsukano teaches the controller controlling the process.
The combination of Tsukano, Diaz, and Sato as applied to Claim 1 does not teach a concentration sensor.
Ohno teaches a concentration sensor (Fig. 4, 60) configured to measure a concentration of the processing fluid.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Ohno into the system of Tsukano, Doing so, would result in a concentration sensor being implemented into the system of Tsukano to measure the fluid as a reference of the controller. Both inventions of Tsukano and Ohno are in the same field of endeavor, Ohno teaches a method of improving the cleaning process with a predictable result of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20200168482 to Inadomi.
In Reference to Claim 14
Tsukano discloses the processing vessel opening at horizontal direction.
The combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the substrate is carried into the vessel in a vertical direction.
Inadomi teaches the substrate can be carried into either in horizontal (Fig. 8) or in vertical (Fig. 13) direction.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Inadomi into the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the substrate being moved into the vessel in a vertical direction. Both inventions of Tsukano and Inadomi are in the same field of endeavor, Indomi teaches a vertical opening is a design variation of the processing chamber.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ohno.
In Reference to Claim 18
Tsukano teaches the controller controlling the process.
The combination of Tsukano, Diaz, and Sato as applied to Claim 17 does not teach a concentration sensor.
Ohno teaches a concentration sensor (Fig. 4, 60) configured to measure a concentration of the processing fluid.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Ohno into the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 17, Doing so, would result in a concentration sensor being implemented into the system of Tsukano to measure the fluid as a reference of the controller. Both inventions of Tsukano and Ohno are in the same field of endeavor, Ohno teaches a method of improving the cleaning process with a predictable result of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kano.
In Reference to Claim 20
Tsukano discloses supply fluid in a first state and a second state.
The combination of Tsukano and Diaz as applied to Claim 16 does not teach two different supply system.
Kanno teaches the at least one supply line included in the fluid supply device comprises a gas line (Fig. 4, 42) connected to the second fluid supply (Fig. 4, 43) and a first supply line (Fig. 4, 22) through which the processing fluid sent from the first fluid supply in the first state is supplied to the processing vessel, and the gas line is connected to the first supply line, and the controller controls the fluid supply device such that the processing fluid in the gas state is supplied to the processing vessel from the second fluid supply via the gas line and the first supply line in the second state.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kanno into the combination of Tsukano, Diaz and Sato as applied to Claim 16. Doing so, would result in two separated supplying system being incorporated into the system of Tsukano, Both inventions of Tsukano and Kanno are in the same field of endeavor, Kanno teaches a method of removing particle remaining on the surface of the substrate after the drying of the substrate with a predictable result of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument filed on 12/26/25 is based on the amended claims. The argument is moot in terms of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1/22/26