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 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.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa et al (U.S.Pat. 6,592,678) in view of Thakur et al (U.S. Application Publication No. 2003/0192570A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Kamikawa discloses a wafer processing apparatus including a cleaning bath (30) for processing semiconductor wafers with a processing solution and a fluid supply/circulation arrangement for supplying and circulating processing solution to the through the cleaning path (see figure 3).
In particular, Kamikawa discloses cleaning bath (30) including an inner bath (30b) for receiving wafers and an outer bath (30c) surrounding the opening of the inner bath and receiving processing solution overflowing from the inner bath. Kamikawa further discloses a discharge port from outer bath (30c) connected by circulating line (50) to cleaning solution supply nozzle (32) positioned in the cleaning bath. Circulating line (50) includes circulating pump (52), temperature control (53) and filter (54). Kamikawa explains that chemical stored in cleaning path (30) is thereby circulated and supplied for continued processing of the wafers.
Thus, Kamikawa teaches a processing-liquid circulation arrangement in which processing liquid is communicated between portions of the wafer-processing bath through supply and return/circulation paths. The outer bath (30c) receives solution overflowing from inner bath (30b), thereby providing a return of processing solution from the wafer-processing portion of the bath to the circulation portion. Kamikawa does not expressly disclose that an ultraviolet light source is positioned at the process tank, delivery stream, or return stream as presently claimed.
Thakur, however, teaches the use of ultraviolet light or white light in a semiconductor wafer cleaning system. Thakur discloses UV light bulbs position within a single-wafer cleaning chamber to irradiate the processing environment wherein UV radiation breaks down organic contaminants and further ozonates DI water during a rinse phase, with the resulting ozone action on organic molecules to facilitate their breakdown and removal. Thakur further expressly discloses or more banks of UV light bulbs positioned in the cleaning chamber (see paragraphs [0028-0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the UV treatment taught by Thakur into the processing-liquid circulation system of Kamikawa, including positioning the UV source at a processing liquid reservoir or along a supply or return/circulation path, in order to expose the processing liquid to UV radiation and thereby reduce or break down contaminants in the liquid and improve cleanliness of the wafer-processing system.
The placement of the known UV treatment source at different portions of the known liquid circulation path would have amounted to a predictable use of the UV treatment taught by Thakur according to its established contaminant-reduction function.
With respect to claims 2-4, positioning the UV source respectively at the process tank, return stream, or delivery represents the application of the known UV treatment at respective portions of the known processing-liquid circulation path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized these locations as predictable locations at which the circulating processing liquid may be irradiated to provide the contaminant-reduction benefits taught by Thakur.
As to claim 5, the claim requires a first light source positioned at the process tank and a second light positioned at the return stream. Thakur expressly teaches the use of multiple UV sources, including banks of UV lamps (601) and (602) within the cleaning chamber, for irradiating the processing environment. In view of Thakur’s teaching of multiple UV sources, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple UV sources at different portions of Kamikawa’s circulating liquid system, including at the process tank and return path, to increase irradiation opportunity and treatment coverage of the circulating processing liquid and thereby enhance the contaminant -reduction function taught by Thakur.
With respect to claims 6 and 12-14, Thakur expressly teaches UV light bulbs, and one or more banks of UV light bulbs. Thakur disclosed banks of UV lamps reasonably correspond to an array of lamps as recited in the claims.
Accordingly, selection of a lamp or array of lamps for providing the claimed UV illumination would have been obvious.
As to claim 7, Kamikawa discloses chemical storing container (34) containing processing chemical and chemical supply pipe (36) communicating the stored chemical with cleaning-solution supply pipe (33) for supplying processing liquid to cleaning bath (30). Thus, Kamikawa teaches a processing-solution source vessel and a feed path coupling the source vessel to the wafer-processing liquid supply system as recited in claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Kamikawa discloses drainage and waste handling associated with cleaning bath (30). Specifically, a drain pipe (30e) is connected to the bottom of inner bath (30b) and a waste pipe (30f) is connected to the bottom of outer bath (30c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art to direct such discharged processing liquid through the disclosed waste path to a conventional waste collection vessel for containment and disposal of spent processing liquid, such arrangement being a predictable implementation of Kamikawa’s expressly disclosed waste-liquid discharge system.
As to claim 9, Kamikawa discloses CPE/Controller (45) for controlling the overall of operations of the apparatus.
With respect to claim 10, Kamikawa expressly discloses a filter (54) positioned in circulating line (50), together with circulating pump (53) and temperature control mechanism (53). The processing chemical passes through filter (54) as it is circulated and supplied for continued wafer treatment. Accordingly, Kamikawa expressly teaches filtration in the processing-liquid circulation path as recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 21, the claim recites a first light source positioned at the process tank, a second light source positioned at the delivery stream, and a third light source positioned at the return stream. As discussed above, Kamikawa teaches a circulating wafer-processing liquid system, and Thakur teaches UV treatment for breaking down contaminants as well as the use of multiple UV light sources. Although Thakur does not expressly disclose three UV sources positioned at the three specified locations recited in claim 21, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the known UV treatment at multiple portions of Kamikawa's circulation path, including the process tank, delivery path, and return path to increase the opportunity for UV exposure of the circulating processing liquid and thereby enhance the known contaminant-reduction treatment.
Each UV source performs the same known function of irradiating the processing environment/liquid, and distributing multiple known UV treatment sources along the known circulation path would have represented a predictable use and duplication of known UV treatment means according to their established function. No criticality or unexpected result is apparent from merely providing the same known UV treatment at each of the three recited portions of the circulation path.
With respect to claim 22, Thakur expressly teaches UV bulbs and banks of UV bulbs. A bank of UV bulbs reads on or at least renders obvious an array of lamps as recited.
Accordingly, providing each of the UV sources of claim 21 as one or more lamps, arrays of lamps, or strings of lights would have been an obvious selection of known UV illumination arrangements.
Claims 23 and 24 respectively require a filter in the return stream and a filter in the delivery stream. Kamikawa expressly teaches filter (54) in circulating line (50) through which the processing chemical is circulated and supplied back to the cleaning bath. Placement of filtration at either portion of the circulation path would have been an obvious arrangement for removing contaminants from circulating processing liquid before its continued use in wafer processing.
Accordingly, claims 23 and 24 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Kamikawa and Thakur.
With respect to claim 25, Kamikawa teaches chemical storing container (34) containing processing chemical and chemical supply pipe 36 communicating the stored chemical with the cleaning-solution supply line (33). Thus, Kamikawa teaches or renders obvious a processing-solution source vessel containing processing solution and a feed stream coupling the source vessel to the process-liquid system.
With respect to claim 26, Kamikawa expressly discloses drain pipe 30e and waste pipe (30f) for removal of processing liquid from cleaning bath (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the expressly disclosed waste pipe to a waste collection vessel to receive discharged processing solution, since collection of discharged chemical processing liquid in an appropriate waste vessel constitutes a predictable implementation of Kamikawa's waste-liquid handling arrangement.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed July 23, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 15-20 have been cancelled and new claims 21-26 have been added. Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the amendment have been carefully reviewed but they are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Kamikawa does not disclose the claimed return stream because chemical supply pipe (36) supplies chemical from chemical storing container (34) and circulating line 38 does not couple cleaning bath (30) to container (34). Applicant's arguments are not persuasive of patentability. The Examiner acknowledges that circulating line (38), considered by itself, need not be construed as a return stream coupling cleaning bath 30 and chemical storing container (34). Applicant's argument, however, focuses on only one portion of Kamikawa and does not consider Kamikawa's disclosure as a whole.
Kamikawa expressly teaches another embodiment having a processing-liquid recirculation arrangement. In particular, Kamikawa discloses that a discharge port of outer bath (30c) is connected to cleaning-solution supply nozzle (32) by circulating line (50). Circulating line (50) includes circulating pump (52), temperature control mechanism (53), and filter (54). Kamikawa expressly explains that processing chemical stored in cleaning bath (30) is thereby circulated and supplied to continue processing the wafers.
Kamikawa further discloses that outer bath (30c) receives processing solution overflowing from inner bath (30b). Thus, contrary to Applicant's assertion that Kamikawa lacks a return/circulation arrangement, Kamikawa expressly teaches circulation of processing liquid from the wafer-processing bath through a circulation path and back to the processing portion of the apparatus.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the Figure 3 arrangement discussed in the prior Office action does not itself expressly disclose the claimed return relationship, Kamikawa expressly teaches elsewhere that processing liquid may be recirculated from and back to the wafer-processing bath. Kamikawa expressly states that this embodiment is intended to reduce consumption of chemical and effectively utilize the chemical. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to employ Kamikawa's disclosed recirculation arrangement in the wafer-processing system in order to reduce chemical consumption, reuse the processing liquid, and maintain processing effectiveness. The claimed supply/return circulation relationship therefore would have been an obvious implementation of Kamikawa's own expressly disclosed fluid-circulation technique.
Thakur further teaches UV treatment of semiconductor wafer-processing environments to break down organic contaminants and to ozonate rinse liquid, thereby facilitating contaminant removal. Incorporation of Thakur's UV treatment into the circulating processing-liquid system of Kamikawa would have been a predictable use of a known contaminant-treatment technique for its known purpose.
Applicant further asserts that new independent claim 21 is patentable for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 1 and 11. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Claim 21 additionally recites UV light sources at the process tank, delivery stream, and return stream. Thakur teaches multiple UV sources, and providing the known UV treatment at multiple portions of Kamikawa's known processing-liquid circulation path would have been an obvious and predictable duplication and distribution of the known treatment means to increase irradiation opportunity and contaminant treatment.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1–14 and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
8/24/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights