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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-19 are pending on the application, of which claims 1-5 & 7 are amended, claims 13-19 are withdrawn, and claims 6 & 8 are cancelled.
In view of the amendments all previous claim objections are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, except for those to claims 1, 5 & 10-11, as the issues still persist.
In light of the amendments the previous art rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new reference utilized to meet the new limitation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “decompression release portion” in claims 1 & 3-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “fine bubbles” it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the metes and bounds of a “fine bubble” are. Specifically, it is unclear as to what size of bubble determines a fine bubble as compared to a non-fine bubble. Based on the disclosure (see [0091] of the published application) it appears that fine bubbles include ultrafine bubbles such as microbubbles and nanobubbles. Such a disclosure appears to indicate that fine bubbles would also include larger bubbles, as ultrafine is defined as microbubbles and nanobubbles. For examination purposes, the limitation fine bubbles will be construed as bubbles, as a determination of demarcation between a fine bubble and a non-fine bubble cannot be made based on the disclosure. Although applicant has removed one instance of “fine bubbles” in claim 1, a second instance of it remains in claim 1 as well as multiple instances in the dependents claims.
As to claim 5, applicant states “to achieve the first pressure” when referring to the chemical liquid dilution module. This limitation is unclear because the first pressure is associated with the gas dissolved water tank and not the chemical liquid dilution module. The chemical liquid is not supplied to the gas dissolved water tank. Is applicant attempting to claim the fluid at the dilution module is at the first pressure also or that the chemical liquid is pumped at the first pressure? Based on the disclosure it appears that applicant means the pump supplies the chemical liquid at the first pressure (see [0086] of the published application), and will be interpreted as such for examination purposes.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the rotating polishing pad" in lines 2-3 and “the rotating substrate” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fine bubbles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation will be understood as “generate bubbles”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fine bubbles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as applicant attempting to claim the gas dissolved water nozzles having decompression portions such that the water nozzle supplies gas dissolved water having bubbles.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 1-2, 4, 7, & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20080227297A1) in view of Takahashi (US20180085720A1), Kamimura (US20220336209A1), and Sotozaki (US6643882B1).
As to claims 1-2, Matsui discloses a substrate processing system (abstract) comprising: a gas dissolved generation tank (Fig.5 ref 16, the bubble generator reads on a gas dissolved water generation tank since it can store at least some amount of dissolved gas at a first pressure, the limitation of the fluid being water is merely intended use, similarly the limitation of gas being dissolved is intended use; the claim merely requires a tank. It is further noted that [0053, 0067, 0082, 0095, & 0108] also indicates examples where water is the liquid that can be used and air can be dissolved therein); a chemical liquid dilution module (Fig.5 see where ref 17 and ref 20 combine) configured to mix a chemical liquid (Fig.5 ref 19) and the liquid from the generation tank at a predetermined volume ratio; a substrate processing module configured to process a substrate (Fig.5 refs 11-14 including outlet from which liquid ref 22 is supplied) comprising: a substrate holding mechanism (Fig.5 ref 13) configured to hold the substrate; a scrub processing member (Fig.5 refs 11/12) configured to contact the substrate and scrub the substrate; a processing liquid supply nozzle (Fig.5 outlet from which ref 22 is dispensed) configured to supply a processing liquid onto the substrate; wherein the nozzle supplies to chemical liquid that contains bubbles in a process of scrubbing the substrate (see Fig.5 also [0056, 0070-0075, 0085-0090, 0098-0103, & 0111-0116]); the liquid nozzle is defined as part of a cleaning module; the chemical liquid is an undiluted cleaning liquid (see Matsui Fig.5 and [0035]); and the scrub processing member is a polishing pad (Matsui [0020]), thereby reading on a buff cleaning member.
Matsui does not disclose the liquid supply nozzle having a decompression release portion that generates fine bubbles from the combined gas dissolved water and chemical liquid by decompressing the mixture from a first pressure to a second pressure. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Takahashi. Assuming arguendo that it is not explicitly stated that a polished pad is a buff cleaning member, it is known in the art that a polishing bad performs a buffing process as seen by Kamimura. Matsui also does not disclose the processing liquid supply nozzle being arranged at a self-cleaning position away from the substrate such that cleaning liquid does not come into contact with the substrate and supplying cleaning liquid to the scrub member wait at the self-cleaning position. However, such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by Sotozaki.
Takahashi discloses an art related semiconductor cleaning apparatus (abstract), a nozzle can be utilized to generate microbubbles [0052]. Takahashi further showcases that such a nozzle has orifice plates (see Fig.6 refs 50a/50b/50c) arranged in an internal flow path of the nozzle which causes production of fine bubbles due in part to the pressure loss effect of the orifice plate [0087-0092]. The production of microbubbles improves cleaning performance and allow for the bubbles to remain for a longer period of time [0105].
Kamimura discloses an art related substrate cleaning method (abstract), wherein it is known that a polishing pad can perform a buffing treatment [0459]. Thus, a skilled artisan recognizes that a polishing pad which performs polishing can also perform a buffing process and would therefore by equivalently defined as a buff cleaning member.
Sotozaki discloses an art related substrate cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is shown that a cleaning nozzle (Figs.1a-1b ref 30) and a scrubbing tool (Figs.1a-1b ref 10) having a scrubbing member (Figs.1a-1b ref 15) can be supplied on moveable arms (Figs.1a-1b refs 11 & 33). During a cleaning operation of the wafer, the nozzle and scrubbing member are provided in a location to supply fluid to the wafer and scrub and wafer (see Figs.1a-1b & Fig.3). Sotozaki also indicates that the scrubbing member may be moved to a self-cleaning position (e.g., see Fig.3 ref N) where fluid is directed towards the scrubbing member and not the wafer (Col.4 line 59 to Col.5 line 8 & Col.7 lines 55-65). It is understood that the cleaning of the scrubbing member (see Fig.3 ref N) takes place during a retracted position of the arms (see Fig.1b dotted lines) as lowering the scrub member in the extend position would require the scrub member being pushed through the wafer. Thus, Sotozaki discloses a self-cleaning configuration which requires no additional self-cleaning equipment (Col.2 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Matsui to utilize the bubble generating nozzle of Takahashi in order to improve cleaning performance and increase residence time of the bubbles (Takahashi [0105]). As Matsui is concerned with the usage of bubbles in the supplied liquid in order to prevent scratching [0032, 0044], a skilled artisan would find the implementation of a decompression release portion obvious in order to further generate said bubbles to promote the advantageous effect. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the cleaning nozzle and scrub member in a configuration similar to Sotozaki in order to allow for cleaning of the scrub member with no additional equipment (Sotozaki Col.2 lines 18-21).
As to claim 4, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gas is air, which is understood to contain nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon, and krypton.
As to claim 7, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing liquid supply nozzle is arranged on a swinging arm to swing in a radial direction of the rotating substrate (see Sotozaki Figs.1a-1b). The limitation of the nozzle being configured to uniformly supply the cleaning liquid from a center to a peripheral portion of the substrate is merely intended use and a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the nozzle is capable of performing such a feature.
As to claim 9, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing module includes a polishing module (Matsui Fig.5 refs 12-14 and including nozzle outlet through which ref 22 is dispensed), the chemical liquid is an undiluted slurry (Matsui [0035]); and the scrub polishing member has a polishing pad (Matsui Fig.5 ref 12).
As to claim 10, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 9, wherein liquid supply nozzle is arranged above the rotating polishing pad (see Matsui Fig.5 & Sotozaki Figs.1a-1b) and wherein the liquid nozzle is configured to supply the fine bubbles so as to infiltrate a contact surface between the rotating substrate and the polishing pad (see Matsui Fig.5 also [0020, 0022, 0035 & 0041-0043]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20080227297A1) in view of Takahashi (US20180085720A1), Kamimura (US20220336209A1), and Sotozaki (US6643882B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (US20110079247A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Takahashi further indicates that a known manner of producing gas dissolved water by pumping water from a pure water source (Fig.7 ref 12) to a gas dissolved water tank (Fig.7 ref 20) via the use of a pump (Fig.7 ref 30) and also gas from a gas supply source to the tank (see Fig.7 ref 15). Matsui also indicates that many different forms of bubble production systems can be utilized [0028] and that the fluid in which bubbles will be generated may vary (Matsui [0053, 0067, 0082, & 0095]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find the implementation of a water source, gas source, and water pump prior to the gas dissolved water tank to be obvious, as such is a known manner of introducing gas into a tank with a fluid from which bubbles will be generated. As Matsui does not clearly show the manner in which the air is introduced into the fluid, it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner to do so. Since the possibility of multiple difference components (Matsui [0053, 0067, 0082, & 0095]) may be possible, a skilled artisan would find the routing of the fluid such that the mixing of water and the relevant component occur in the tank to be a mundane and ordinary manner of obtaining the desired composition. However, assuming arguendo that such a feature is not readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is known in the art, as seen by Ma
Ma discloses an art related substrate treatment apparatus (abstract), wherein a solution to be prepared can be formulated via individual lines leading into a tank (see Fig.2 refs 201/202/203). Thus, it is known that production of a solution can be accomplished via utilizing different fluid lines in order to transfer fluid into a tank. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find the usage of different lines for providing a relevant component to the water to produce the desired solution to be mere known manner of producing the relevant composition.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20080227297A1) in view of Takahashi (US20180085720A1), Kamimura (US20220336209A1), and Sotozaki (US6643882B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawakawaguchi (US5989105A).
As to claim 5, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 1, wherein chemical liquid is supplied to the nozzle after the dilution module (see Matsui Fig.5). Modified Matsui does not disclose how to liquid is supplied, however the use of a pump after a tank in order to supply a chemical is well known in the art, as seen by Kawakawaguchi.
Kawakawaguchi discloses an art related semiconductor wafer treating apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that pumps are utilized in order to supply chemical fluid, such as a slurry, from a tank to a nozzle (Col.17 lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Matsui to provide a pump after the chemical source in order to supply the chemical to the nozzle, through the dilution module, as desired. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner of supplying fluid when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20080227297A1) in view of Takahashi (US20180085720A1), Kamimura (US20220336209A1), and Sotozaki (US6643882B1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US20150125971A1, hereafter T1), Takahashi (US20170247574A1, hereafter T2), and Ma (US20110079247A1).
As to claim 11, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 9, but does not disclose the presence of a water supply nozzle. However, the use of water supply nozzles during dressing operations is known in the art, as seen by T1 and T2.
T1 discloses an art related substrate polishing apparatus (abstract), having a dresser and a pure water nozzle (Fig.1 refs 25/26). The water nozzle is supplied in order to supply water to a polishing pad during a dressing process [0035]. Dressing allows for restoring of a polishing pad surface and restoration of a polishing performance [0006].
T2 discloses an art related substrate polishing apparatus (abstract), wherein liquid supplied during dressing is utilized to remove polishing composition from the polishing pad after polishing has been performed [0142].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Matsui to implement a dresser and water nozzle for reconditioning of the polishing pad (T1 [0006 & 0035] & T2 [0142]). Further, as Takahashi indicates that very good cleaning performance is obtained from utilizing gas dissolved water and microbubbles (Takahashi [0008]), and the purpose of the water during the dressing process is to remove polishing composition, a skilled artisan would also find it obvious to implement such water nozzles with decompression release portions (as seen by Takahashi Fig.6) and supply them with gas dissolved water in order to achieve excellent cleaning. Based on the direction of the nozzle (see Matsui Fig.5 & Takahashi Fig.6) with respect to the polishing pad, the orifice plates extend in a radial direction of the of the polishing pad (see Takahashi Fig.6). The limitation of supplying the gas dissolved water containing fine bubbles during dressing of the polishing pad after termination of the polishing of the substrate is merely intended use. Since Modified Matsui comprises the relevant structural features to perform such a feature, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the nozzle is capable of supplying said fluid during dressing after polishing.
Assuming arguendo that Modified Matsui provides air into liquid, while the modification requires the implementation of a different gas into the water, the following rationale is provided. The usage of a tank featuring different and separate fluid lines in order to form a desired solution is a known concept in the art, as seen by Ma.
Ma discloses an art related substrate treatment apparatus (abstract), wherein a solution to be prepared can be formulated via individual lines leading into a tank (see Fig.2 refs 201/202/203). Thus, it is known that production of a solution can be accomplished via utilizing different fluid lines in order to transfer fluid into a tank. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find the usage of different lines for providing a relevant component to the water to produce the desired solution to be mere known manner of producing the relevant composition. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a single tank for the dissolution of different gasses can into water can be utilized in order to reduces costs associated with multiple tanks. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the implementation of a tank to which different gases, components, and water could be fed to be an obvious manner of forming a desired solution to be distributed to nozzle(s).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US20080227297A1) in view of Takahashi (US20180085720A1), Kamimura (US20220336209A1), and Sotozaki (US6643882B1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chan (US20100018029A1), Kodera (US20040177655A1), Lei (US20220314395A1), Wu (US20150352686A1), and Ma (US20110079247A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Matsui teaches the system of claim 9, but does not disclose the presence of gas dissolved water nozzles to supply gas dissolved water with fine bubbles onto the polishing pad after the polishing is finished. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Chan and Kodera. Modified Matsui also does not disclose the nozzle(s) being located on a nozzle arm configured to be able to swing in a radial direction of the polishing pad, however such a feature is well-known in the art, as seen by Lei and Wu.
Chan discloses an art related substrate treatment apparatus (abstract), wherein a spray arm with multiple nozzles is utilized to spray gas dissolved water to rinse a polishing pad (Fig.1 ref 20 & [0026, 0031, & 0033-0034] after the polishing process is completed [0033-0034] in order to remove substances generated by the polishing.
Kodera discloses an art related substrate treatment apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that utilizing gas dissolved water allows for shifting of surface potential [0026] and prevents corrosion [0085]. Such gas dissolved water is useful for preventing corrosion after polishing [0076].
Lei discloses an art related substrate cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to provide spraying nozzles for fluid on a rotating arm (see Fig.1B refs 134-136) in order to dispense the fluid onto a polishing pad [0041]. The arm rotates radially with respect to the polishing pad.
Wu discloses an art related substrate cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to provide spraying nozzles for fluid on a rotating arm (see Fig.1B refs 108/162) in order to dispense the fluid onto a polishing pad [0027]. The arm rotates radially with respect to the polishing pad. The use of rotating arms for nozzles to dispense fluid is a known alternative to having fixed nozzles [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Matsui to implement gas dissolved water nozzles in order to rinse the polishing pad after polishing thereby removing residues and preventing corrosion (Chan[0033-0034] & Kodera [0026, 0076, & 0085]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide the gas dissolved water nozzle on a swinging arm that swings in a radial direction of the substrate, as such is a well-known configuration in the art (Lei Fig.1B and [0041], Wu Fig.1B and [0027]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known nozzle configuration in place of another (i.e., rotary arm vs. fixed) when both are known alternatives in the art (Wu [0031]). Further, as Takahashi indicates that very good cleaning performance is obtained from utilizing gas dissolved water and microbubbles (Takahashi [0008]), and the purpose of the water during the dressing process is to remove polishing composition, a skilled artisan would also find it obvious to implement such water nozzles with decompression release portions (as seen by Takahashi Fig.6) and supply them with gas dissolved water in order to achieve excellent cleaning.
Assuming arguendo that Modified Matsui provides air into liquid, while the modification requires the implementation of a different gas into the water, the following rationale is provided. The usage of a tank featuring different and separate fluid lines in order to form a desired solution is a known concept in the art, as seen by Ma.
Ma discloses an art related substrate treatment apparatus (abstract), wherein a solution to be prepared can be formulated via individual lines leading into a tank (see Fig.2 refs 201/202/203). Thus, it is known that production of a solution can be accomplished via utilizing different fluid lines in order to transfer fluid into a tank. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find the usage of different lines for providing a relevant component to the water to produce the desired solution to be mere known manner of producing the relevant composition. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a single tank for the dissolution of different gasses can into water can be utilized in order to reduces costs associated with multiple tanks. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the implementation of a tank to which different gases, components, and water could be fed to be an obvious manner of forming a desired solution to be distributed to nozzle(s). It is further noted that the limitation of supplying the fine bubbles while the substrate is contact with the polishing pad after polishing is stopped is merely intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Kato (US20190126427A1) discloses that it is known to dress and supply a fluid gas mixture to the polishing pad in order to clean the surface of the polishing pad [0035].
Kondo (US20200369918A1) discloses dressing of the polishing pad is a known process in order to ensure consistent surface condition of the polishing pad, and such a process utilizes liquid [0049].
Huang (US20190099787A1) discloses movement of a cleaning member to a cleaning position from a working position (Figs.1a-4), where the cleaning member station can be filled with liquid from a liquid inlet (Figs.5 & 7-10 ref 64).
Ishibashi (US20190088510A1) discloses movement of a cleaning member to a cleaning position from a working position (Fig.56 & [0526]), where the cleaning member is supplied liquid from a nozzle (Fig.56 ref 433a, also [0551-0553]) that also supplies cleaning liquid to a substrate [0531]
Chang (US20140261537A1) discloses movement of a cleaning member for a substrate requires cleaning (Figs.3a-4) and such cleaning is performed using a liquid nozzle (Fig.4 ref 402/404).
Oh (US20200164412A1) indicates that using nanobubbles or microbubbles via a nozzle during a polishing of the wafer can improve cleaning of the wafer [0080].
Shibuya (US20150262833A1) showcases that a slurry can be mixed with microbubbles [0071].
Park (US20150182977A1) showcases a microbubble nozzle with orifice plate (Figs.3-11C & [0067 & 0069]).
Nakagawa (CN112604828A) showcases a nozzle for substrate cleaning has orifice plates (refs 21/22/23) in order to generate microbubbles.
Kashino (US20220250015A1) discloses formation of ultrafine bubbles after dissolving gas into a liquid in a separate tank (Figs.1 & 3) and also shows manners of providing a diluted solution by mixing the solution with the gas dissolved fluid having bubbles (Figs.12-20).
Hiraoka (US20190228991A1) showcases steps for cleaning of a cleaning member during substrate processing (Fig.6).
Citsay (US20160066760A1) discloses that utilizing nanobubbles in fluid is advantageous to cleaning (Figs.1A-1J & [0099-0100]).
Yano (US20160233082A1) showcases the mixing of gas dissolved water with a chemical liquid (see Fig.13).
Sugita (US2022184571A1) discloses the use of gas dissolved water in the diluting of chemical solutions [0047].
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711