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 .
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 § 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) and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0090911, hereinafter Hong).
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 operation which is performed to position the PR and the thinner within the inner pipe and the outer pipe, respectively, 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 (inner pipe) nozzle and solvent solution (outer pipe) 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.
Kitano/Nakashima 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]).
Regarding “antistatic”, since the conductive layer is grounded, it would eliminate static energy (any charge buildup is sent to ground).
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 as the outermost surface of the outer pipe is considered the cover of the nozzle) 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.
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
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hong discloses a conductive coating on a nozzle cover, not an antistatic conductive coating layer disposed on the outer pipe of a double-pipe nozzle. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument regarding Hong not teaching a concentric inner pipe or outer pipe arrangement is not persuasive as Kitano discloses such a structure. The test for obviousness is whether it would have been obvious to have added a grounded conductive layer, as taught in Hong, to the nozzle cover of Hong.
Applicant further argues that the nozzle cover of Hong is a separate structure. Hong does not suggest providing a conductive layer on the outer pipe. Further, Applicant argues that the office action merely concluded that the nozzle cover is “hence the outer pipe”, but provides no technical explanation or evidentiary support for treating these distinct structures are equivalent. These arguments are not persuasive. A nozzle cover is simply the outermost structure and surface which surrounds a nozzle. It is inherent that there is an outermost structure and surface which surrounds the nozzle of Kitano, and hence outside the outer pipe. Hong discloses that it is known to include a grounded (antistatic) conductive layer on the outermost surface (the nozzle cover) of a nozzle for dispensing photoresist and therefore, would have yielded predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success to also include a grounded conductive layer on the outermost surface of Kitano’s nozzle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights