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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 17-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the controller as recited in the present invention is not anticipated by the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al (JP 2014-179655). The examiner agrees that the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al does not anticipate the present invention as argued on pages 11-15 of the Remarks. The new rejections below recite how the present invention is taught by Ueki Tatsuhiro et al (US 2018/0076057).
Claim Interpretation
The examiner suggests that the invention be changed from an apparatus to a system. Please ensure that all occurrences of apparatus in the claims be changed to a system. It is also noted that the substrate and attribute be positively recited as the crux of the invention appears to be that the controller control the ejection part and where it will distribute processing liquid based upon the attribute of the substrate or a film formed on the substrate. Note that the term "attribute" is interpreted via reviewing the original specification [0023] - [0025] and [0030]. For the purpose of examination, the term “apparatus” as recited in the claims is interpreted as a system.
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function interpretation, the applicant has
amended the claims to amended the term “nozzle posture change mechanism” to “nozzle posture changer” in claim 26. The term nozzle posture changer” is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function as it recites sufficient structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15 and 17-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US 11,935,739 (also known as previously recited co-pending US application 17/024065, henceforth known as the patent) as held to Fujita in view of Omi Tadahiro et al (JP 2014-179655 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant in the IDS of January 19. 2023).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 15, 17, 19, 20, 22-27: The patent claims a substrate holder, rotary driver, and a processing liquid nozzle see claim 1. Claims 6-8 of the patent recite that an ejection part (processing liquid nozzle) but fails to recite that the ejection part includes a plurality of nozzles ejecting the processing liquid. See especially the recitation of first and second angles in claims 6-8.
The prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al teaches a plurality of liquid nozzles (see 4 arms with nozzles 61-64) as illustrated in Fig.6 and described in [0047] where the angle of a nozzle 65 is approximately 60 degree, the flow rate of an etching liquid to be supplied therefrom 3 liters/min, the angle of a nozzle 66 is 60 degrees, and the flow rate of an etching liquid to be supplied that is approximately 4 liters/min. Omi Tadahiro et al teaches that each of the nozzles has a function of adjusting the angle for supplying a liquid to a silicon substrate 10. See also [0044] and [0047] of Omi Tadahiro et al which recites that the nozzle is mounted on the arm. The motivation to modify the apparatus/system of the patent with the suggestion of the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al to provide a plurality of nozzles is that it ensures processing liquid is provided to the wafer more efficiently. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patent to provide a plurality of nozzles as suggested by Omi Tadahiro et al.
The patent further fails to recite that the controller controls the ejection part (nozzles) based on an attribute of the wafer/film on the substrate (SiO2 layer) see the Overview . The prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al teaches that the apparatus will wet etch at a high etching rate and can provide optimal wafer flatness (surface roughness) see overview. According to the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al the substrate can be thinned/film on the wafer (cutting width) achieved see [0009], [0028]. See the teachings regarding controller 21 of Omi Tadahiro et al. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent to ensure that the controller controls based on the attribute (SiO2 layer) of the wafer ensures that the controller performs its function with qualitative analysis of the wafer and the desired product result. Omi Tadahiro et al teaches a plurality of nozzles are provided the amount and composition of a chemical liquid to be supplied to a plurality of points on a wafer surface can be varied appropriately for the respective spots. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the patent to ensure that the controller controls based on the attribute of the wafer as suggested by the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al.
Regarding claims 18 and 21: The patent fails to recite a second processing liquid. The prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al teaches the etching fluid (fluoronitric acid) and rinse fluid (ultrapure water) see [0044]. [0047], and [0051]. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent with different nozzles that provide first and second processing liquids that are different as suggested by Omi Tadahiro et al so that an etching liquid is provided and then rinsed at desired positions. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the patent to ensure that first and second processing liquids are provided by the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al.
Claims 15 and 17-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US 11,164,760 (henceforth referred to as the patent) in view of Omi Tadahiro et al (JP 2014-179655 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant in the IDS of January 19. 2023.
The patent claims a substrate holder, rotary driver, and liquid discharge unit (ejection part), and a controller see claims 1-10 of the patent. The patent fails to recite that the ejection part includes a plurality of nozzles ejecting the processing liquid.
Regarding claims 15, 17, 19, 20, 22-27 See claim 1 of the patent recites that the controller is configured to control an operation of the etching apparatus such as the liquid discharge unit (ejection part). See claim 1 of the patent recites the liquid discharge unit to etch the substrate under immediate deviation conditions in which the etching solution is deviated from the substrate immediately after the etching solution discharged from the liquid discharge unit lands at a liquid landing point in the peripheral portion of the substrate, wherein a circle, which centers around a foot of a perpendicular line drawn from the liquid landing point to the rotation axis and has a radius corresponding to a segment line from the foot of the perpendicular line to the liquid landing point in a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis, is defined, and a direction of a tangent to the circle at the liquid landing point is defined as a tangential direction, when a liquid processing is performed on the substrate under the immediate deviation conditions, the controller configured to control at least one of the rotation driver or the liquid discharge unit to supply the etching solution to the substrate under a condition in which a ratio of a velocity of the tangential direction of the substrate at the liquid landing point to a velocity component of the tangential direction of the etching solution at the liquid landing point is greater than a predetermined value, wherein the velocity component of the tangential direction of the etching solution at the liquid landing point is represented by V.sub.C×cos φ×cos θ, and wherein V.sub.C is a discharge velocity of the etching solution, φ is an angle between a straight line connecting a foot of a perpendicular line drawn from a discharge point of the etching solution to a front surface of the substrate and the liquid landing point and a straight line connecting the discharge point and the liquid landing point, and θ is an angle between the straight line connecting the foot of the perpendicular line drawn from the discharge point of the etching solution to the front surface of the substrate and the liquid landing point and a tangent to the circle at the liquid landing point. See especially the discussion of angles φ and θ.
The prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al teaches a plurality of liquid nozzles (see 4 arms) as illustrated in Fig. 3 and described in [0044]. See also [0047] which recites that the nozzle is mounted on the arm. The motivation to provide a plurality of nozzles is that it ensures processing liquid is provided to the wafer more efficiently. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patent to provide a plurality of nozzles as suggested by Omi Tadahiro et al.
The patent fails to recite that the controller controls the ejection based on an attribute of the wafer. The prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al teaches that the apparatus will wet etch at a high etching rate and can provide optimal wafer flatness (surface roughness) see overview. According to the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al the substrate can be thinned (cutting width) achieved see [0009], [0028]. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent to ensure that the controller controls based on the attribute of the wafer ensures that the controller performs its function with qualitative analysis of the wafer and the desired product result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the patent to ensure that the controller controls based on the attribute of the wafer as suggested by the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al.
Regarding claims 18 and 21: The patent fails to recite a second processing liquid. The prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al teaches the etching fluid (fluoronitric acid) and rinse fluid (ultrapure water) see [0044]. [0047], and [0051]. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent with different nozzles that provide first and second processing liquids that are different as suggested by Omi Tadahiro et al so that an etching liquid is provided and then rinsed at desired positions. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the patent to ensure that first and second processing liquids are provided by the prior art of Omi Tadahiro et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by
Ueki Tatsuhiro et al (US 2018/0076057).
Regarding claim 15: The prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus that processes a peripheral edge portion of a front surface of a substrate with a processing liquid, the substrate processing apparatus comprising: a substrate holder (21) configured to hold the substrate; a rotational driver (rotational driving unit 24 including a motor 23) configured to rotate the substrate holder around a rotation axis; an ejection part (nozzle driving unit 70 and liquid supply units 75 and 92) configured to eject the processing liquid toward a liquid landing point set in the peripheral edge portion of the front surface of the substrate, and a controller 7 configured to control at least an operation of the ejection part, wherein, when a circle, which is centered on a foot of a perpendicular line drawn from the liquid landing point to the rotation axis, a radius of which is a line segment interconnecting the foot of the perpendicular line and the liquid landing point, and which is located on a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis, is defined, and a tangential line to the circle at the liquid landing point is defined, when an angle formed by a straight line, which interconnects a foot of a perpendicular line drawn from an ejection point of the processing liquid to the front surface of the substrate and the liquid landing point, and a tangential line to the circle at the liquid landing point is a first angle θ and when an angle formed by the straight line, which interconnects the foot of the perpendicular line drawn from the ejection point of the processing liquid to the front surface of the substrate and the liquid landing point, and a straight line, which interconnects the ejection point and the liquid landing point, is a second angle φ the ejection part includes a plurality of nozzles (73, 76) that is capable of ejecting a same first processing liquid as the processing liquid, and one nozzle and another nozzle among the plurality of nozzles are configured to be different from each other in at least one of the first angle θ or the second angle φ and wherein the controller is further configured to control, based on an attribute of the substrate on which the first processing liquid ejected from the ejection part lands or a film formed on the substrate and an important process performance, the ejection part such that the first processing liquid is ejected by using a nozzle that is selected from among the plurality of nozzles and is capable of achieving the important process performance. See Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches first and second angles α1, α2 and ß1 and ß2 see [0066] - [0098]. See the abstract of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al wherein the controller 7 is recite where the discharge angle and discharge position is determined based upon the information upon the variation width of the deformation amount of the peripheral portion acquired by the variation width acquiring unit. Note that the discharge position refers to the landing position of the processing liquid and the rinse liquid on top of the wafer W see [0048] – [0098] of prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al. See Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 13 Ueki Tatsuhiro et al below.
PNG
media_image1.png
746
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
308
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
328
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
500
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17: The prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the controller 7 is configured to control the ejection part (nozzle driving unit 70 and liquid supply units 75 and 92) such that the first processing liquid is ejected by using the nozzle that is selected from among the plurality of nozzles (see nozzles , chemical liquid nozzle 73 and rinse 76) and is capable of achieving the important process performance according to a processing recipe that defines a processing condition for the substrate and a nozzle to be used. See [0048] – [0051] of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 18: The prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the ejection part is configured such that one nozzle among the plurality of nozzles capable of ejecting the first processing liquid is also capable of ejecting the second processing liquid. See the ejection part (nozzle driving unit 70 and liquid supply units 75 and 92) such that the first processing liquid is ejected by using the nozzle that is selected from among the plurality of nozzles (see nozzles , chemical liquid nozzle 73 and rinse 76). See Fig. 1 of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 19: The prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the controller 7 has a function of selecting, from among the plurality of nozzles, a nozzle that is capable of achieving the important process performance based on the attribute of the substrate on which the first processing liquid ejected from the ejection part lands or the film formed on the substrate and the important process performance, and the controller is further configured to control the ejection part such that the first processing liquid is ejected by using the selected nozzle. See the abstract of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al wherein the controller 7 is recite where the discharge angle and discharge position is determined based upon the information upon the variation width of the deformation amount of the peripheral portion acquired by the variation width acquiring unit. Note that the discharge position refers to the landing position of the processing liquid and the rinse liquid on top of the wafer W see [0048] – [0098] of prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 20: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the controller 7 is further configured to control the ejection part such that, with respect to a same substrate, after the first processing liquid is ejected from the one nozzle among the plurality of nozzles, the first processing liquid is ejected from the another nozzle. See the ejection part (nozzle driving unit 70 and liquid supply units 75 and 92) such that the first processing liquid is ejected by using the nozzle that is selected from among the plurality of nozzles (see nozzles , chemical liquid nozzle 73 and rinse 76). See Fig. 1 of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 21: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the ejection part includes a nozzle that is different from the plurality of nozzles and is configured to eject, as the processing liquid, a second processing liquid different from the first processing liquid, or the ejection part is configured such that one nozzle among the plurality of nozzles capable of ejecting the first processing liquid is also capable of ejecting the second processing liquid. See the ejection part (nozzle driving unit 70 and liquid supply units 75 and 92) such that the first processing liquid is ejected by using the nozzle that is selected from among the plurality of nozzles (see nozzles , chemical liquid nozzle 73 and rinse 76). See Fig. 1 of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 22: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the attribute of the substrate or the film formed on the substrate includes surface roughness (see discussions of non-uniformity of layer/film on wafer in [0007], [0056], [0059] [0060] and wherein the important process performance includes or high cutting accuracy. See discussions of “bevel cutting” and “cutting width” in [0003], [006], [0022] – [0026], [0052] – [0058], [0062], [0063]- [0074], [0079] – [0085], and [0092] – [0097] of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 23: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus that processes a peripheral edge portion of a front surface of a substrate with a processing liquid, the substrate processing apparatus comprising: a substrate holder (21) configured to hold the substrate; a rotational driver (24) configured to rotate the substrate holder around a rotation axis; an ejection part configured to eject the processing liquid toward a liquid landing point set in the peripheral edge portion of the front surface of the substrate; and a controller configured to control at least an operation of the ejection part, wherein the controller 7 is further configured to control, based on an attribute of the substrate on which the processing liquid ejected from the ejection part lands (landing position/ landing angle) or a film formed on the substrate and an important process performance, the ejection part such that a first angle θ and a second angle φ at which the important process performance is achievable are implemented, wherein, when a circle, which is centered on a foot of a perpendicular line drawn from the liquid landing point to the rotation axis, a radius of which is a line segment interconnecting the foot of the perpendicular line and the liquid landing point, and which is located on a plane orthogonal to the rotation axis, is defined, and a tangential line to the circle at the liquid landing point is defined, the first angle θ is an angle formed by a straight line, which interconnects a foot of a perpendicular line drawn from an ejection point of the processing liquid to the front surface of the substrate and the liquid landing point, and a tangential line to the circle at the liquid landing point, and the second angle φ is an angle formed by the straight line, which interconnects the foot of the perpendicular line drawn from the ejection point of the processing liquid to the front surface of the substrate and the liquid landing point, and a straight line, which interconnects the ejection point and the liquid landing point. See Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches first and second angles α1, α2 and ß1 and ß2 see [0066] - [0098]. See the abstract of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al wherein the controller 7 is recite where the discharge angle and discharge position is determined based upon the information upon the variation width of the deformation amount of the peripheral portion acquired by the variation width acquiring unit. Note that the discharge position refers to the landing position of the processing liquid and the rinse liquid on top of the wafer W see [0048] – [0098] of prior art of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al. See Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 13 Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 24: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 23, wherein the ejection part includes a plurality of nozzles73, 76 that is capable of ejecting a same processing liquid, and one nozzle and another nozzle among the plurality of nozzles are configured to be different from each other in at least one of the first angle θ or the second angle φ. Note the structure of the nozzles of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al tare inherently capable of dispersing a plethora of processing liquids to include the same etching liquid and/or rinse liquid see [0034] and [0042]. See Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 13 Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 25: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 24, wherein the attribute of the substrate or the film formed on the substrate includes the surface roughness; or etching rate for the processing liquid and wherein the important process performance includes at least high cutting accuracy. see discussions of non-uniformity of layer/film on wafer in [0007], [0056], [0059] [0060] and wherein the important process performance includes or high cutting accuracy. See discussions of “bevel cutting” and “cutting width” in [0003], [006], [0022] – [0026], [0052] – [0058], [0062], [0063]- [0074], [0079] – [0085], and [0092] – [0097] of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 26: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 23, wherein the ejection part includes a nozzle configured to eject the processing liquid, and a nozzle posture changer (nozzle driving unit 70) configured to change at least one of the first angle θ or the second angle φ of the nozzle by changing a posture of the nozzle. See Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches first and second angles α1, α2 and ß1 and ß2 see [0066] - [0098]. See Figs. 1, 7, 10, and 13 Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Regarding claim 27: Ueki Tatsuhiro et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus of Claim 23, wherein the attribute of the substrate or the film formed on the substrate includes at least one of: affinity for the processing liquid; surface roughness; or etching rate for the processing liquid, and wherein the important process performance includes at least one of: a small amount of particles; a short slope width; or high cutting accuracy. See discussions of non-uniformity of layer/film on wafer in [0007], [0056], [0059] [0060] and wherein the important process performance includes or high cutting accuracy. See discussions of “bevel cutting” and “cutting width” in [0003], [006], [0022] – [0026], [0052] – [0058], [0062], [0063]- [0074], [0079] – [0085], and [0092] – [0097] of Ueki Tatsuhiro et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Usami et al US 2003/0021893 teaches a plurality of nozzles where landing position and landing angle of the dispersed fluid is controlled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, 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.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716