DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species ii (Fig. 5A), Species v (Figs. 12A and 12B) and Species vi (photoresist dispenser) in the reply filed on 9/16/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant indicated that claims 1-15 corresponds to the elected species. This is incorrect. Fig. 5A show that the outer tube protrudes downward from the inner tube, which is directed to claim 3. Claim 2 is a different embodiment directed to Fig. 6A and thus claim 2 is not an elected specie. Fig. 12A and 12B shows conductive rings throughout the nozzle which is directed to claim 6. Claim 5 is a different embodiment directed to Fig. 11A and 11B and thus claim 5 is not an elected specie. Accordingly, the elected species corresponds to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15.
Claims 2, 5, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claims are directed to an apparatus (nozzle and dispenser). Applicant is reminded that material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims (see MPEP 2115). Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114). In this case, claim limitations directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus (e.g., photoresist, thinner, air,) and the manner of operating the device (e.g., the order in which materials are sucked-back, which material is ejected from which pipe, etc) does not differentiate from the prior art so long as all the claimed structural limitations are taught by the prior art. A prior which discloses all the claimed structural limitations is fully capable of performing any claimed intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims, 1, 3-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation “multi-suck-back”. While suck-back valves are known in the art, it is unclear what is meant by a multi-suck-back versus just a suck-back. Does it mean that both the thinner and the photoresist are sucked back or that suck-back is performed multiple times on either the photoresist or thinner? Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, multi-suck-back is interpreted to be either one of the options discussed above.
Claims 7 and 13 recite the limitation “wherein air, thinner, air, and the PR are sequentially disposed upward in the inner pipe through the multi-suck-back, and air and thinner are sequentially disposed upward in the outer pipe”. Since claims 1 and 10 already disclose thinner, there should be antecedent consistency. It appears the limitation should be “the thinner”. Further, it is unclear whether “air and thinner” which is sequentially disposed upward in the outer pipe is the same as the air and thinner which are sequentially disposed upward the inner pipe. Are these intended to be done at the same time or separate processes? Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to be any combination of suck-back for the inner and outer pipe.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (US 6,416,583, hereinafter Kitano) in view of Nakashima et al. (US 2006/0233952, hereinafter Nakashima).
Per independent claim 1:
Kitano discloses a nozzle having a double pipe structure (see Fig. 4) for applying resist solution onto a semiconductor wafer (col. 1, lines 5-10), the nozzle comprising:
an inner pipe having a conical shape gradually narrowing downward (inner pipe, resist solution nozzle 40, col. 9, lines 28-34), through which photoresist is transferred (see claim interpretation section above, further Kitano discloses that the nozzle is used for resist solution), and having a tip through which the PR is ejected (see Fig. 4); and
an outer pipe surrounding the inner pipe, having a conical shape gradually narrowing downward (inner pipe, solvent solution nozzle 41, col. 9, lines 28-34), through which thinner is transferred (see claim interpretation section above, further Kitano discloses that the solvent solution nozzle dispenses thinner as the solvent, col. 6, lines 39-40), and having a tip through which the thinner is ejected (see Fig. 4),
wherein the nozzle is coupled to a nozzle arm and moved (Fig. 2, Fig. 13A).
Kitano does not disclose a multi-suck-back which is performed without driving the nozzle arm.
Suck-back valves are well-known in the art to prevent droplets dripping after a dispensing operation. For example, Nakashima discloses a liquid processing apparatus (see title and abstract) for coating resist liquid to a semiconductor wafer ([0002]) comprising a nozzle unit 4 with processing-liquid nozzles 4A to 4J (see abstract) which communicate with processing-liquid sources 43A to 43J and suck-back valves VA to VJ ([0076]) wherein a suck-back controller is used to control each individual suck-back valve ([0078]). The controller controls how much processing liquid and solvents are sucked-back ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Kitano such that the resist solution nozzle and solvent solution nozzle are each equipped with a separate suck-back valve and a suck-back valve controller in the manner suggested by Nakashima in order to individually control the suck-back of each nozzle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent unnecessary dripping from each nozzle which could negatively affect the coating uniformity on the wafer.
With regards to the limitation “performed without driving the nozzle arm”, this is an intended use of the nozzle.
Per claim 3, the tip of the outer pipe protrudes downward from the tip of the inner pipe (see Fig.4 of Kitano).
Per claim 7, the order of suck-back operation is an intended use of the suck-back valve. Kitano/Nakashima discloses a suck-back controller with separate suck-back valves for each nozzle. Therefore, the structure of Kitano/Nakashima is fully capable of performing the claimed intended use.
Per claim 8, these limitations are an intended use of the nozzle.
Per claim 9, these limitations are an intended use of the nozzle.
Per independent claim 10:
See rejection of claim 1 above.
Per claims 11, 13, and 14, see rejections of claims 3, 7, and 9 above.
Per claim 15, see annotated Fig. 13A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (US 6,416,583, hereinafter Kitano) in view of Nakashima et al. (US 2006/0233952, hereinafter Nakashima) and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0090911, hereinafter Hong).
Per claims 4 and 12, Kitano/Nakashima disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 but do not teach an antistatic conductive layer is disposed on the outer pipe, and the conductive layer is connected to ground.
Hong discloses an apparatus for semiconductor wafer processing (see title, abstract and [0003]) comprising a nozzle for supplying treatment fluid such as photoresist ([0004]) wherein the nozzle cover 420 is connected to a ground line and a conductive coating may be implemented on the nozzle cover 420 ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Kitano/Nakashima by adding a grounded conductive layer over the nozzle cover (and hence the outer pipe) in the manner taught by Hong. One would have been motivated do so because Hong discloses that it is known for nozzles dispensing photoresist onto a semiconductor wafer to include a grounded conductive layer. Therefore, this is combining known prior art elements to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art discloses a double-pipe nozzle having a conductive ring pair where a first conductive ring surrounds an inner wall of an inner side of the outer pipe and a second conductive ring surrounds an inner wall of an outer side of the outer pipe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744