DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on March 17, 2026. Claim 1 is amended; claims 2 and 3 are canceled.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art does not disclose the new material now recited by claim 1 – namely, central and peripheral gas inlets, where the gap from the latter to the substrate is twice as large as the gap from the former to the substrate (pp. 6-7).
In response, the examiner accepts this characterization and has withdrawn the outstanding 103 rejections. Subsequent further search, however, new rejections have been applied below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokouchi et al., JP 2003-264168, in view of Harada et al., US 2019/0074171, Chacin et al., US 2008/0069951, and Bailey III et al., US 2008/0179010.
Claim 1: Yokouchi discloses an apparatus for conducting backside cleaning of a substrate, comprising:
A process chamber (5) (Figs. 5, 7);
A substrate support (100) for supporting the substrate (W) in the process chamber;
A minimum contact area support (102) configured to extend from the substrate support to contact the backside of the substrate (Fig. 6);
A gas distributor disposed over the substrate having a central gas inlet (52) for directing gas flow at a center of a frontside of the substrate;
An etch gas delivery source (101) disposed below the substrate support for directing an etch gas to the substrate’s backside;
A radiative heat source (4B) disposed below the substrate support.
Yokouchi elaborates the steps of providing a substrate to the process chamber, extending the MCA supports to lift the substrate above the substrate support, and heating the substrate to a temperature between 50-160 degrees Celsius using the radiative heat source (4B) (page 11, paragraph 3). In addition, the reference introduces a first etch gas flow to the backside of the substrate to remove material, introduces a curtain gas flow through the central gas inlet (52), and introduces a second etch gas flow to a periphery of the substrate to remove bevel material (pp. 13-14). These steps, however, are not explicitly governed by controller programmed with a “code,” as claim 1 requires. Harada, however, provides a similar apparatus directed to the same objective of bevel etching, whereby a programmable controller (18) governs all operations, including regulating the supply of gas to the substrate [0027]. It would have been obvious to integrate a controller within Yokouchi’s apparatus, since it has been held that broadly providing mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192).
Separately, the fourth paragraph of claim 1 recites a “plurality” of MCA supports, and it is unclear if Yokouchi’s MCA support (102) is a single annulus or a plurality of supports arrayed circumferentially. In supplementation, Chacin discloses an apparatus for processing the backside of a wafer and, in order to maximize the exposed surface area, provides three minimum contact area supports (912) for bearing the wafer from its underside ([0053]; Fig. 9F). It would have been obvious to form Yokouchi’s MCA support as a plurality of supports since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Regarding the new material, it seems that Yokouchi’s peripheral gas inlet (51) is at the same vertical position as the central gas inlets (Fig. 7). And yet, alternative gas distributor configurations are known in the art, as Bailey evidences. Figure 3 of Bailey depicts the peripheral gas inlet (306b) disposed within an outer, stepped portion of the gas distributor (302) and the central gas inlet (306a) embedded within a region extending downwardly toward substrate [0035]. Although the gap from the substrate’s frontside (310) to the peripheral gas inlet (306b) is clearly greater than the gap to the central gas inlet (306a), claim 1 requires the former gap to be “two times greater” than the latter. If we take the claimed “frontside of the substrate” as the geometric center of the substrate, then the gap to the peripheral gas inlet will be well over twice the gap to the central gas inlet. Yet even if we take the “frontside of the substrate” as two positions: a first substrate position closest to the central gas inlet, constituting the claimed “second gap,” and a second position at the edge of the substrate closest to the peripheral gas inlet, constituting the claimed “first gap,” the limitation appears satisfied. This is because the “second gap” measures ¼” and the “first gap” measures ½”. Although Figure 3 may not be precisely to scale, it remains a disclosure to the public domain showing a first gap of twice that of the second, and the Office understands that one of ordinary skill could readily derive the claimed ratio from the deliverances of Bailey. It would have been obvious to configure the gas distributor of the composite prior art apparatus as a stepped design, as it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lastly, claim 1 recites a “substrate compris[ing] photoresist material,” but the act of providing a substrate is not patentable content, as expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof, e.g., a substrate, during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969)).
Claim 4: Chacin provides a rotatable susceptor plate (205) which, in turn, would permit the rotation of the attached MCA supports [0013].
Claim 5: As shown by Figure 8, Chacin provides retractable lift pins (801) which, alternatively, may be taken as the plurality of MCA supports [0079].
Claim 6: With reference to Figure 7 of Yokouchi, the hole of the etch gas delivery source (101) appears to extend through the radiative heat source (4B), although the rendering’s perspective confounds this interpretation. Regardless, the only other option is for the hole to be positioned outside the heat source, which similarly satisfies the claim limitation.
Claim 7: Yokouchi couples heaters (4A) to the gas distributor above the substrate (Fig. 7).
Claim 10: Yokouchi provides a hydrogen halide (HF) for purposes of etching. The photoresist material is not patentable content, as it relates to the article worked upon by the apparatus.
Claim 13: Given that a substrate comprising a photoresist can be provided to Yokouchi’s chamber by the operator, the application of heat during the etching operation necessarily qualifies as a “post-application bake.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokouchi in view of Chacin, Bailey, and Harada, and in further view of Duvall et al., US 9,428,833.
Yokouchi does not avail a deposition sensor, but Duvall employs ellipsometry techniques to determine the thickness of a film deposited on the backside of a substrate at various points across its surface (19, 34-40). As Yokouchi seeks to remove backside deposits, providing a means to determine the location and thickness of said deposits necessarily furthers this objective. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to integrate ellipsometers within Yokouchi’s system to achieve the predicable result of detecting backside film deposits.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokouchi in view of Chacin, Bailey, and Harada, and in further view of Zi et al., US 2018/0039182.
Yokouchi does not teach the step of depositing the photoresist material within the same chamber where bevel etching proceeds. However, this practice is known. For example, to increase operational efficiency, Zi prescribes performing sequential photoresist application and removal steps within the same processing chamber (150) [0057, 0069]. Since Yokouchi shares the same objective of improving efficiency, it would have been obvious to integrate the aforesaid deposition step, as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Han et al., US 2010/0288728. Han provides a backside cleaning apparatus comprising a process chamber (100), a substrate support (200), a gas distributor (300) over the substrate support having central (312) and peripheral (311) gas inlets, and an etch gas delivery source (210) below the substrate support ([0035-39]; Fig. 1).
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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights