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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 7-9, and 11 were amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claim 21 was added. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are in the application. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn. Replacement Paragraphs were submitted on page 7, line 12 and page 28, line 32 to page 29, line 9 to correct minor typographical errors. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is withdrawn based on the arguments by the Applicant.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“while the remainder of the substrate remains wet” in claim 1. Based on paragraph 38, a suggested revision is “ while an interior of the upper surface of the substrate remains wet”;
“further comprising an actuator mounted to the mounting assembly, wherein the actuator is configured to move the least one gas injector” in claim 8;
“the actuator is configured to move the at least one gas injector downwards toward the substrate during the drying period and upwards away from the substrate at other times” in claim 9; or
“further comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate” in claim 21.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 recites “the substrate holder” A suggested revision is “a second substrate holder” or “a substrate holder in the deposition chamber”. Based on Fig. 5, this holder appears to a different holder than in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 10 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) .
Regarding claim 1, Harumoto teaches a substrate holder (2) configured to support a substrate (W) ; a nozzle (3) arranged above the substrate, wherein the nozzle (3) is configured to inject a pre-wetting liquid onto a surface of the substrate during a pre-wetting period; and at least one gas injector (4) arranged radially outward of the nozzle, wherein the at least one gas injector (4) is configured to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Harumoto does not explicitly teach a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate.
Nonaka is directed to a liquid processing apparatus.
Nonaka teaches a chamber (20) in a substrate processing system (3, 16), the chamber comprising: a substrate holder (30) configured to support a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nonaka teaches this structure is effective for performing a liquid processing using a nozzle on a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Harumoto does not explicitly teach a controller configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate; and dry the edge of the substrate while remainder of the substrate remains wet.
Yoshihara is directed to adjusting the resist film on a substrate.
Yoshihara teaches control part a computer and program to control the substrate treatment apparatus. ( See Yoshihara, paragraph 39.)
Yoshihara teaches the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate; and dry the edge of the substrate while remainder of the substrate remains wet. (See Yoshihara, paragraphs 45, 52, 54.)
Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a controller configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yoshihara teaches this structure is effective to adjust the film thickness uniformity. (See Yoshihara, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 45, 52, 54.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Harumoto does not explicitly teach a controller configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate; and dry the edge of the substrate while remainder of the substrate remains wet.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Harumoto teaches a controller (31, CPU) configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject the gas during the drying period (t7). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a a controller configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Harumoto teaches this structure is effective for controlling a substrate processing apparatus. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 2, Harumoto teaches wherein the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate (W) without removing the pre-wetting liquid from an interior of the substrate. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 3, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas away from an interior of the substrate and radially outward toward the edge of the substrate (W). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 4, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas at an acute angle relative to the surface of the substrate holder. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 6, Harumoto teaches the substrate holder (2) is configured to rotate during at least one of the pre-wetting period (t1 to t2) and the drying period (t7). (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Regarding claim 11, Harumoto teaches the at least one gas injector is arranged to inject the gas radially inward from an edge of the substrate toward an interior of the substrate. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 26-40, 56-57.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190096713 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190096713 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 5, Harumoto does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Chen is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Chen teaches the at least one gas injector (140) comprises two or more gas injectors (400, 400) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Chen teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030098040 A1 to Nam et al (hereinafter Nam) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030098040 A1 to Nam et al (hereinafter Nam).
Regarding claim 5, Harumoto does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Nam is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Nam teaches the at least one gas injector (212, 222) comprises two or more gas injectors (212, 222) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nan teaches this allows the gas to be supplied to the predetermined portion of the edge section. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda).
Regarding claim 7, Harumoto does not explicitly teach further comprising a mounting assembly arranged parallel to the substrate, wherein the at least one gas injector is mounted onto the mounting assembly that is configured to rotate relative to the substrate during the drying period.
Okuda is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Okuda teaches the at least one gas injector (1012) is mounted on an assembly (1019) that is configured to rotate during the drying period.
Okuda teaches a mounting assembly (arm 1035) arranged parallel to the substrate, wherein the at least one gas injector (1012) is mounted onto the mounting assembly that is configured to rotate relative to the substrate during the drying period
(See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a mounting assembly arranged parallel to the substrate, wherein the at least one gas injector is mounted onto the mounting assembly that is configured to rotate relative to the substrate during the drying period, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Okuda teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
Regarding claim 8, Harumoto teaches further comprising an actuator (13) mounted to the mounting assembly, wherein the actuator is configured to move the at least one gas injector is configured to move the at least one gas injector. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43,46,56-57 MT.)
Harumoto does not explicitly teach the actuator is mounted to the mounting assembly.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a the actuator is mounted to the mounting assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Harumoto teaches an actuator is a known structure for moving a nozzle and its related parts. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43,46,56-57 MT.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda) as applied to claim 8 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130011555 A1 to Sawada and Matsuzaki et al (hereinafter Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 9, Harumoto does not explicitly teaches the actuator is configured to move the at least one gas injector downwards towards the substrate during the drying period and upwards away from the substrate at other times. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Matsuzaki is directed to a gas injecting nozzle.
Matsuzaki teaches the height of the gas injecting nozzles can be varied. (See Matsuzaki, paragraphs 57, 82, 113, 117-118, 135, 138, 140, Abstract, Figs. 1-26.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different heights, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper height for the gas injecting nozzle, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal surface properties on the surface of the wafer. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Matsuzaki, paragraphs 57, 82, 113, 117-118, 135, 138, 140, Abstract, Figs. 1-26.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030092261 A1 to Kondo et al (hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claim 21, Harumoto does not explicitly teach comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate.
Kondo is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Kondo teaches comprising a seal (2090) arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution (plating liquid) from reaching the edge of the substrate (end portion of the substrate). (See Kondo, Abstract, Figs. 80, 86, 88, and paragraphs 144, 149-150, 227, 264, 362, 481, 483, and 487.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the chamber comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kondo teaches this structure is effective for preventing content with the end portion of the substrate not intended to receive coating. (See Kondo, Abstract, Figs. 80, 86, 88, and paragraphs 144, 149-150, 227, 264, 362, 481, 483, and 487.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170342583 A1 to Thorkelsson et al (hereinafter Thorkelsson).
Regarding claim 21, Harumoto does not explicitly teach comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate.
Thorkelsson is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Thorkelsson teaches comprising a seal (143, 149) arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution (plating liquid) from reaching the edge of the substrate (end portion of the substrate). (See Thorkelsson, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 99-101, 136, 160-161.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the chamber comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this structure as effective for preventing content with the end portion of the substrate not intended to receive coating. (See Thorkelsson, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 99-101, 136, 160-161.)
The previous rejection of claims 1-4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Jun Sawada (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Jun Sawada (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara)
Regarding claim 1, Sawada teaches a substrate holder (34) configured to support a substrate (36) ; a nozzle (38) arranged above the substrate, wherein the nozzle (38) is configured to inject a pre-wetting liquid (48) onto a surface of the substrate during a pre-wetting period; and at least one gas injector (44) arranged radially outward of the nozzle, wherein the at least one gas injector (44) is configured to inject gas toward an edge (36b-d) of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate (36b-d). (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Sawada does not explicitly teach a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate.
Nonaka is directed to a liquid processing apparatus.
Nonaka teaches a chamber (20) in a substrate processing system (3, 16), the chamber comprising: a substrate holder (30) configured to support a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a chamber in a substrate processing system, the chamber comprising: a substrate holder configured to support a substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nonaka teaches this structure is effective for performing a liquid processing using a nozzle on a substrate. (See Nonaka, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 36-38, 41-44, 47-50, 68, 82, 86, and 92.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Sawada does not explicitly teach a controller configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate; and dry the edge of the substrate while remainder of the substrate remains wet.
Yoshihara is directed to adjusting the resist film on a substrate.
Yoshihara teaches control part a computer and program to control the substrate treatment apparatus. ( See Yoshihara, paragraph 39.)
Yoshihara teaches the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate; and dry the edge of the substrate while remainder of the substrate remains wet. (See Yoshihara, paragraphs 45, 52, 54.)
Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a controller configured to control the at least one gas injector to inject gas toward an edge of the substrate for a drying period subsequent to the pre-wetting period to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yoshihara teaches this structure is effective to adjust the film thickness uniformity. (See Yoshihara, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 45, 52, 54.)
Regarding claim 2, Sawada teaches wherein the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas to remove the pre-wetting liquid from the edge of the substrate (W) without removing the pre-wetting liquid from an interior of the substrate. (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding claim 3, Sawada teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas away from an interior of the substrate and radially outward toward the edge of the substrate (W). (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding claim 4, Sawada teaches the at least one gas injector (4) is arranged to inject the gas at an acute angle relative to the surface of the substrate holder. (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
Regarding claim 11, Sawada teaches the at least one gas injector is arranged to inject the gas radially inward from an edge of the substrate toward an interior of the substrate. (See Sawada, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 13-14.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190096713 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190096713 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Chen is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Chen teaches the at least one gas injector (140) comprises two or more gas injectors (400, 400) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Chen teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Chen, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 21-27.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030098040 A1 to Nam et al (hereinafter Nam) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030098040 A1 to Nam et al (hereinafter Nam).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada does not explicitly teach the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart.
Nam is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Nam teaches the at least one gas injector (212, 222) comprises two or more gas injectors (212, 222) that are azimuthally spaced apart. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the at least one gas injector comprises two or more gas injectors that are azimuthally spaced apart, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nan teaches this allows the gas to be supplied to the predetermined portion of the edge section. (See Nam, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and paragraphs 13, 25, 27, 39-40, 46-47, 55, 60, 62-63, and 71.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda).
Regarding claim 7, Sawada does not explicitly teach further comprising a mounting assembly arranged parallel to the substrate, wherein the at least one gas injector is mounted onto the mounting assembly that is configured to rotate relative to the substrate during the drying period.
Okuda is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Okuda teaches the at least one gas injector (1012) is mounted on an assembly (1019) that is configured to rotate during the drying period.
Okuda teaches a mounting assembly (arm 1035) arranged parallel to the substrate, wherein the at least one gas injector (1012) is mounted onto the mounting assembly that is configured to rotate relative to the substrate during the drying period
(See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a mounting assembly arranged parallel to the substrate, wherein the at least one gas injector is mounted onto the mounting assembly that is configured to rotate relative to the substrate during the drying period, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Okuda teaches this structure is effective for providing nozzles at the desired angle and orientation to the wafer(s). (See Okuda, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 13, and paragraphs 168-171, 177, 185, 188-189, 194, 198-199, 208-209, 211, 227, 230-2, 247, 249, 270-272, and 282-283.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto).
Regarding claim 8, Sawada does not explicitly teach further comprising an actuator mounted to the mounting assembly, wherein the actuator is configured to move the at least one gas injector is configured to move the at least one gas injector.
Harumoto teaches further comprising an actuator mounted to the mounting assembly, wherein the actuator is configured to move the at least one gas injector is configured to move the at least one gas injector. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43,46,56-57 MT.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a the actuator is mounted to the mounting assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Harumoto teaches an actuator is a known structure for moving a nozzle and its related parts. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43,46,56-57 MT.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) US Pat. Pub. No. 20020035762 A1 to Okuda et al (hereinafter Okuda) and JP 2016182531 to Harumoto et al (hereinafter Harumoto) as applied to claim 8 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130011555 A1 to Sawada and Matsuzaki et al (hereinafter Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 9, Harumoto does not explicitly teaches the actuator is configured to move the at least one gas injector downwards towards the substrate during the drying period and upwards away from the substrate at other times. (See Harumoto, Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 10, and paragraphs 37,42-43, 46, 56-57.)
Matsuzaki teaches the height of the gas injecting nozzles can be varied. (See Matsuzaki, paragraphs 57, 82, 113, 117-118, 135, 138, 140, Abstract, Figs. 1-26.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different heights, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper height for the gas injecting nozzle, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal surface properties on the surface of the wafer. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Matsuzaki, paragraphs 57, 82, 113, 117-118, 135, 138, 140, Abstract, Figs. 1-26.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030092261 A1 to Kondo et al (hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claim 21, Sawada does not explicitly teach comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate.
Kondo is directed to a wafer treatment apparatus.
Kondo teaches comprising a seal (2090) arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution (plating liquid) from reaching the edge of the substrate (end portion of the substrate). (See Kondo, Abstract, Figs. 80, 86, 88, and paragraphs 144, 149-150, 227, 264, 362, 481, 483, and 487.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the chamber comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kondo teaches this structure is effective for preventing content with the end portion of the substrate not intended to receive coating. (See Kondo, Abstract, Figs. 80, 86, 88, and paragraphs 144, 149-150, 227, 264, 362, 481, 483, and 487.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09106980 to Sawada et al (hereinafter Sawada) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150147888 A1 to Nonaka et al (hereinafter Nonaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170342583 A1 to Thorkelsson et al (hereinafter Thorkelsson).
Regarding claim 21, Sawada does not explicitly teach comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate.
Thorkelsson teaches comprising a seal (143, 149) arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution (plating liquid) from reaching the edge of the substrate (end portion of the substrate). (See Thorkelsson, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 99-101, 136, 160-161.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the chamber comprising a seal arranged on the substrate holder adjacent to the edge of the substrate after the edge of the substrate is dried wherein the seal is configured to prevent a plating solution from reaching the edge of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this structure as effective for preventing content with the end portion of the substrate not intended to receive coating. (See Thorkelsson, Abstract, paragraphs 97, 99-101, 136, 160-161.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11, and 21 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. US Pat. Pub. No. 20180350594 A1 to Yoshihara et al (hereinafter Yoshihara) is being used to address the limitations added to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20170056917 A1 to Imamura et al teaches drying an annular portion of the wafer while the center of the wafer remains wet. (See Imamura, paragraphs 87 and 94 and Fig. 4A-E.) US Pat. Pub. No. 20170140929 A1 to Yoshihara et al teaches drying an annular portion of the wafer while the center of the wafer remains wet. (See Imamura, paragraphs 45, 52, and 54.)
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights