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
The amendment filed 27 February 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract have overcome the Specification objections. The Specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments as to why claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be invoked for the claims, but the examiner was not persuaded. The examiner notes that a Claim Interpretation section still remains in the Office action, although 35 USC 112(f) is not a cause for rejecting the claims because the Specification contains sufficient structure to cover the functional limitations that are identified in the Claim Interpretation section.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome most of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, the Applicant’s arguments regarding one of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections was fully considered but was found not to be persuasive. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments provided grounds for an additional 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Therefore, there are still grounds in the claims for 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 USC 112(d) rejections. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 27 February 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-7 and 10-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The effective filing date of the Instant Application is based on KR 10-2022-0073628 and is determined to be 16 June 2022. The other foreign application that is identified (KR 10-2021-0192294) does not provide adequate support for the claims under review.
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 the following:
In claim 2, “supporter” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
The generic placeholder is “supporter” (substitute for a means for supporting) and the functional limitation is “supporting the substrate.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “body” and a “support shaft.”
In claim 10, “profile detector” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
The generic placeholder is “detector” (substitute for a means for detecting) and the functional limitation is “detects the profile of the laser.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “profiler.” The examiner understands a laser beam profiler to connote a specific meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., “a laser beam profiler captures, displays, and records the spatial intensity profile of a laser beam at a particular plane transverse to the beam propagation path” (Wikipedia entry for “laser beam profiler”).
In claims 14 and 19, “detector” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
The generic placeholder is “detector” (substitute for a means for detecting) and the functional limitation is “for detecting a profile of the laser.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “profiler.” The examiner understands a laser beam profiler to connote a specific meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., “a laser beam profiler captures, displays, and records the spatial intensity profile of a laser beam at a particular plane transverse to the beam propagation path” (Wikipedia entry for “laser beam profiler”).
In claims 6 and 19, “imager” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
The generic placeholder is “imager” (substitute for a means for imaging) and the functional limitation is “configured to image an imaging region to which the laser is irradiated” or “for imaging a region to which the laser is irradiated.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “camera.”
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 1-16 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: “moving an optical module including a laser unit configured to irradiate the laser to a process position for treating the substrate from a standby position….adjusting… before the optical module is moved to the process position.” It is noted that the contingent limitation of “before the optical module is moved to the process position” may never occur (MPEP 2111.04). In particular, if the optical module is moved from the process position to the standby the position, then the “moving” step is satisfied, but the condition precedent for the “adjusting” step is not met because the optical module is not “moved to the process position.” As such, the examiner does not need to present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "adjusting” step, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Recommend positively reciting this contingent limitation by matching the claim language used in the “moving” step with the claim language that is used in the contingent limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "thereon" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the antecedent for “there” is within “thereon.” Initially, the examiner understood the antecedent to be the claimed “region” because the laser irradiates the region. However, line 6 of claim 1 states that the “exposure pattern is formed on the substrate,” which suggests that the antecedent for “there” is actually the substrate and not the region. Thus, it unclear if the antecedent for “there” in “thereon” is the “region” or the “substrate.” For the purpose of the examination, the antecedent for “thereon” will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as being the substrate.
Claims 2-16 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20200036145-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Kim ‘145) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US-20020006561-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘145 teaches a substrate treating method (“substrate processing device,” para 0001) comprising:
treating a substrate by supplying a liquid to the substrate (“sprays the treatment solution onto the substrate,” para 0039), and, while the liquid remains on the substrate (paras 0053-0054), irradiating a laser to a region of the substrate (“irradiates a laser to a substrate,” para 0043);
moving an optical module (laser irradiation unit 900, fig. 2) including a laser unit (laser irradiation unit 930, fig. 2) configured to irradiate the laser to a process position for treating the substrate from a standby position deviating from the process position (para 0049).
Kim ‘145, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
572
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘145 does not explicitly disclose an exposure pattern formed thereon so that an actual pattern corresponding to the exposure pattern is formed on the substrate; and adjusting a state of the optical module at an inspection port provided at the standby position to a set condition before the optical module is moved to the process position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Taniguchi teaches an exposure pattern is formed thereon (“circuit pattern,” para 0040; formed on wafer W, fig. 1; position in fig. 1 is construed as the claimed “process position”) so that an actual pattern corresponding to the exposure pattern is formed on the substrate (“exposing a pattern on a mask onto a photosensitive substrate,” para 0001; construed such that a pattern from the mask or reticle R is actually formed on the “wafer W, which is coated with photoresist,” para 0040 and fig. 1; similarly, paragraph 0003 of the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that “light is exposed” on “a resist on the wafer…according to a pattern by the light and the mask”); and adjusting a state of the optical module (projection lens system “PL,” figs. 1 and 6) at an inspection port (reference plate FP, fig. 6) provided at the standby position (position shown in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “standby position”) to a set condition (“magnification…is changed by moving the lens element 140,” para 0105) before the optical module is moved to the process position (PL is moved to fig. 7, which is construed as the claimed “process position,” after adjusting the lens element 140, para 0128).
Taniguchi, fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
1000
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Taniguchi, by using a reference plate FP and adjusting the lens elements, as taught by Taniguchi, of the laser irradiation unit 930 while in a standby position, as taught by Kim ‘145, which was used to create a circuit pattern, as taught by Taniguchi, because during semiconductor manufacturing process, multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer and each pattern must be precisely superimposed onto the previous pattern but unintended positional shift tend to occur, causing the optical axis of the projection lens system to become oblique, which can be prevented by calibrating the projection lens system in advance using reference marks on a reference plate (paras 0006-0007, 0045, and 0053).
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘145 teaches wherein the standby position (“standby position,” para 0049) includes an outer region of a treating container (cup 320, fig. 2) surrounding a supporter (support member 340, fig. 2; includes shaft 349 and chuck 342, fig. 2) supporting the substrate (“the standby position is the position where the laser irradiation unit (930) is outside the process position,” para 0049; the standby position is construed as a position that does not “face the support member 340,” para 0049; support member 340 is within the cup 320, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi as set forth above regarding claim 2 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Taniguchi teaches wherein the adjusting the state of the optical module (projection lens system “PL,” figs. 1 and 6) includes an adjusting an irradiation position of the laser (“magnification…is changed by moving the lens element 140,” para 0105; fig. 8 shows the adjustment of the optical axis AX of the PL system, which is construed as “adjusting the irradiation position of the laser”; a similar process is taught in fig. 13 of the Instant Application; paras 0017 and 0038).
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘145 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inspection port includes a first detector for displaying a reference point and for checking the irradiation position of the laser, and the laser unit irradiates the laser toward the first detector, and the adjusting the irradiation position is performed based on a deviation of the irradiation position of the laser irradiated to the first detector from the reference point.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Taniguchi teaches wherein the inspection port (reference plate FP, fig. 6) includes a first detector (reference plate 15, fig. 3) for displaying a reference point (reference marks 40, 41, fig. 3; reference marks 115a, 115b, fig. 6) and for checking the irradiation position of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8; para 0045), and the laser unit irradiates the laser toward the first detector (as shown in fig. 6; paras 0118-0119), and wherein the adjusting the irradiation position (fig. 8; “the master controller 124 controls the magnification correcting controller 148 to greatly change the magnification of the projection optical system PL, while monitoring the reticle marks 119 a, 119 b and the wafer reference marks 115 a, 115 b on the reference plate FP simultaneously through the reticle microscopes 129A, 129B,” para 0118) is performed based on a deviation of the irradiation position of the laser irradiated to the first detector from the reference point (“If the reticle center is offset from the optical axis AX,” para 0119; as shown in fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Taniguchi, by using a reference plate FP with reference marks and adjusting the lens elements, as taught by Taniguchi, of the laser irradiation unit 930, as taught by Kim ‘145, because during semiconductor manufacturing process, multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer and each pattern must be precisely superimposed onto the previous pattern but unintended positional shift tend to occur, causing the optical axis of the projection lens system to become oblique, which can be prevented by calibrating the projection lens system in advance using reference marks on a reference plate (paras 0006-0007, 0045, and 0053).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Taniguchi teaches wherein the adjusting the irradiation position (fig. 8) adjusts the irradiation position of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8) irradiated to the first detector to the reference point by moving the optical module (“magnification correcting controller 148 to greatly change the magnification of the projection optical system PL,” para 0118; paras 0104-0105).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘145 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical module further includes an imager configured to image an imaging region to which the laser is irradiated, and the adjusting the state of the optical module further includes an adjusting the imaging region by aligning the imaging region of the imager with the irradiation position of the laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Taniguchi teaches wherein the optical module further includes an imager (image pick-up devices 128a and 128b, fig. 6; “CCD,” para 0102; construed as cameras) configured to image an imaging region (area 201, fig. 8) to which the laser is irradiated (fig. 6), and the adjusting the state of the optical module further includes an adjusting the imaging region (adjustment from image 202 to image 203, fig. 8; para 0017) by aligning the imaging region of the imager with the irradiation position of the laser (the imaging region 203 aligns over the center RCT when axis AX is aligned at the center RCT, fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Taniguchi, by using a images from image pick-up devices to adjust the lens elements, as taught by Taniguchi, of the laser irradiation unit 930, as taught by Kim ‘145, because during semiconductor manufacturing process, multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer and each pattern must be precisely superimposed onto the previous pattern but unintended positional shift tend to occur, causing the optical axis of the projection lens system to become oblique, which can be prevented by calibrating the projection lens system in advance by using a signal processor to analyze images taken of reference marks on a reference plate to ensure proper optical axis alignment (paras 0006-0007, 0045, 0053, and 0102).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Taniguchi teaches wherein the inspection port (reference plate FP, fig. 6) includes a first detector (reference plate 15, fig. 3) for displaying a reference point (reference marks 40, 41, fig. 3; reference marks 115a, 115b, fig. 6) and checking the irradiation position of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8; para 0045), and the laser unit irradiates the laser to the first detector (as shown in fig. 6; paras 0118-0119), the imager images the first detector and acquires an image including the laser irradiated to the first detector (para 0116; the image pick-up devices are part of the microscopes 129A and 129B that monitor the alignment), and the adjusting the imaging region (“the reticle marks 119 a and 119 b align with the wafer reference marks 115 a and 115 b,” para 0116) is performed based on a deviation of the imaging region from the irradiation position of the laser irradiated to the first detector (deviation of the marks 119a/19a and 119b/19b that align with the image 203, fig. 8; in fig. 6 the marks 119a and 119b align with the images that are taken from the microscopes 129A and 129B; para 0101).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Taniguchi teaches wherein the adjusting the imaging region (reticle image 203, fig. 8) adjusts a tilting angle of a lens (lens 7, figs. 4b-d) acquired at an imaging path (optical path 44B, 44C, and 44D, figs. 4b-d), to adjust a center of the imaging region (center of image 203, fig. 8) to a center of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8) irradiated to the reference point (reference marks 115a, 115b, fig. 6; paras 0116-0119).
Regarding claim 16, Kim ‘145 teaches wherein the liquid is supplied to the substrate (“The treatment solution supply unit (380) sprays the treatment solution onto the substrate (W).,” para 0039) in which a rotation has stopped (“The connector cover (914) can be installed non-rotatably at the top of the rotating shaft (912) so as not to be linked with the rotating motion of the rotating shaft (912),” para 0046; construed such that rotation of the cover 914 is stopped, fig. 2), and the laser is irradiated to the substrate (“when one end of the laser irradiated from the laser irradiation unit (900) is
positioned at the rotation center of the substrate, the laser can be irradiated to the area
between the center and the outer end of the substrate.,” para 0050) in which the rotation is stopped (rotation of the cover 914 is stopped, para 0046).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20200036145-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Kim ‘145) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US-20020006561-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hagiwara et al. (US-20020041377-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘145 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjusting the state of the optical module includes an adjusting a profile for adjusting any one of a diameter of the laser, a steepness of the laser, and a uniformity of the laser, based on a detected profile of the laser, which is detected by detecting the profile of the laser irradiated from the laser unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Hagiwara teaches wherein the adjusting the state of the optical module (“adjusting the projection optical system based on the measurement results,” para 0074) includes an adjusting a profile (“intensity distribution,” para 0062; Hagiwara teaches a method for adjusting the measured intensity distribution by changing the “z position” of the slit plate; the intensity distribution is construed as the claimed “profile”) for adjusting any one of a diameter of the laser (“the main controller 20 repeatedly performs measurement of the aerial image of the measurement marks RM3 to RMn and detection of the best focal position of the projection optical system PL,” para 0250; adjusting the focal position by changing z position of the slit plate is construed as changing the diameter of the beam spot of the laser), a steepness of the laser (change of signal intensity, figs. 11-16; as the focal positions change, the signal intensity becomes more steep as shown in fig. 11, which is construed as the claimed “steepness”), and a uniformity of the laser (the “uniformity” is construed as the changes in the signal intensity with the “rectangular area portion,” para 0276; fig. 20), based on a detected profile of the laser (“p(y),” para 0205), which is detected by detecting the profile of the laser irradiated from the laser unit (detected through the slit 22 in portion 58a, fig. 2).
Hagiwara, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
993
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Hagiwara, by using the aerial image measurement method using a slit plate 22, as taught by Hagiwara, to adjust the laser irradiation unit 930 while in a standby position, as taught by Kim ‘145, in order to obtain and compensate for the spherical aberration of the projection optical system by repeatedly performing detection of the best focal position along the optical axis, for the advantage of preventing distortion in the projection optical system, which is caused by the lateral shift of an originally straight line in an image plane (Hagiwara, paras 0039-0041).
Regarding claim 10, Kim ‘145 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inspection port includes a profile detector for detecting the profile of the laser, and the laser unit irradiates the laser to the profile detector, and the profile detector detects the profile of the laser which is irradiated, and the adjusting the profile is performed based on a deviation of the profile detected by the profile detector from a reference range of the profile having the set condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Hagiwara teaches wherein the inspection port (portion 58a, fig. 2) includes a profile detector (slit plate 90 and aerial image measurement unit 59, fig. 2; used to measure the “light intensity distribution,” para 0202; construed as a profiler) for detecting the profile of the laser (“light intensity distribution,” para 0202), and the laser unit (projection optical system PL, fig. 2) irradiates the laser (illumination light IL, fig. 2) to the profile detector (slit plate 90, fig. 2), and the profile detector detects the profile of the laser which is irradiated (paras 0199-0202), and the adjusting the profile (“changing the Z position of the slit plate 90,” para 0324; para 0235) is performed based on a deviation of the profile detected by the profile detector from a reference range (“based on each best focal position Z 1, Z2, . . . , and Zn,” para 0251; construed as a range of focal positions) of the profile having the set condition (“based on the light intensity signal obtained, then corrects the positional deviation of the reticle R3 with respect to the center of the optical axis, based on the coordinate values (x1, y1) of the image forming position,” para 0277; construed as performing a correction if there is a deviation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Hagiwara, by using the aerial image measurement method using a slit plate 22 and an aerial image measurement unit 59, as taught by Hagiwara, to adjust the laser irradiation unit 930 while in a standby position, as taught by Kim ‘145, in order to obtain and compensate for the spherical aberration of the projection optical system by repeatedly performing detection of the best focal position along the optical axis, for the advantage of preventing distortion in the projection optical system, which is caused by the lateral shift of an originally straight line in an image plane (Hagiwara, paras 0039-0041).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi and Hagiwara as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Hagiwara teaches wherein the reference range (“based on each best focal position Z 1, Z2, . . . , and Zn,” para 0251; construed as a range of focal positions) includes a diameter range of the laser (adjusting the focal position by changing z position of the slit plate is construed as changing the diameter of the beam spot of the laser), and the optical module moves in a vertical direction to adjust the diameter of the laser (“automatic focusing,” para 0337; construed as adjusting the height of the alignment system ALG1, fig. 2), if the profile of the laser detected at the profile detector deviates from the diameter range at the adjusting the profile (“baseline is automatically corrected,” para 0337; construed as performing a correction if a deviation is identified).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi and Hagiwara as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Hagiwara teaches wherein the reference range (“based on each best focal position Z 1, Z2, . . . , and Zn,” para 0251; construed as a range of focal positions) includes a steepness range of the laser (as the focal positions change, the signal intensity becomes more steep as shown in fig. 11, which is construed as the claimed “steepness”), and the optical module moves in a vertical direction to adjust a steepness of the laser (“automatic focusing,” para 0337; construed as adjusting the height of the alignment system ALG1, fig. 2), if the profile detector deviates from the steepness range of the profile of the laser which is detected by the profile detector at the adjusting the profile (“baseline is automatically corrected,” para 0337; construed as performing a correction if a deviation is identified).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi and Hagiwara as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Hagiwara teaches wherein the reference range (“based on each best focal position Z 1, Z2, . . . , and Zn,” para 0251; construed as a range of focal positions) includes a uniformity range of the laser (the “uniformity range” is construed as the changes focal positions when the “rectangular area portion” is measured, para 0278), and an interlock is generated (not explicitly disclosed) or a position and/or an angle of an optical system which is positioned on a path of the laser irradiated by the laser unit is adjusted (“automatic focusing,” para 0337; construed as adjusting the height of the alignment system ALG1, fig. 2), if the profile detector deviates from the uniformity range of the profile of the laser which is detected by the profile detector at the adjusting the profile (“baseline is automatically corrected,” para 0337; construed as performing a correction if a deviation is identified).
Regarding claim 14, Kim ‘145 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inspection port includes: a first detector displaying a reference point and which checks an irradiation position of the laser; and a second detector for detecting a profile of the laser, and wherein the adjusting the state of the optical module comprises: adjusting the irradiation position of the laser; adjusting an imaging region for moving the imaging region for imaging the laser to a position at which the laser is irradiated; and adjusting the profile of the laser irradiated from the laser unit to a reference range of the profile having a set condition, based on a detection of the laser unit of the profile of the laser irradiated toward the second detector, and the profile of the detected laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Taniguchi teaches wherein the inspection port (reference plate FP, fig. 6) includes: a first detector (reference plate 15, fig. 3) displaying a reference point (reference marks 40, 41, fig. 3; reference marks 115a, 115b, fig. 6) and which checks an irradiation position of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8; para 0045); and wherein the adjusting the state of the optical module (projection lens system “PL,” figs. 1 and 6) comprises: adjusting the irradiation position of the laser (fig. 8; “the master controller 124 controls the magnification correcting controller 148 to greatly change the magnification of the projection optical system PL, while monitoring the reticle marks 119 a, 119 b and the wafer reference marks 115 a, 115 b on the reference plate FP simultaneously through the reticle microscopes 129A, 129B,” para 0118); adjusting an imaging region (adjustment from image 202 to image 203, fig. 8; para 0017) for moving the imaging region for imaging the laser to a position at which the laser is irradiated (the imaging region 203 aligns and moves to the center RCT as a result of the axis AX aligning with the center RCT, fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Taniguchi, by using a images from image pick-up devices to adjust the lens elements, as taught by Taniguchi, of the laser irradiation unit 930, as taught by Kim ‘145, because during semiconductor manufacturing process, multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer and each pattern must be precisely superimposed onto the previous pattern but unintended positional shift tend to occur, causing the optical axis of the projection lens system to become oblique, which can be prevented by calibrating the projection lens system in advance by using a signal processor to analyze images taken of reference marks on a reference plate to ensure proper optical axis alignment (paras 0006-0007, 0045, 0053, and 0102).
Kim ‘145/Taniguchi do not explicitly disclose a second detector for detecting a profile of the laser and adjusting the profile of the laser irradiated from the laser unit to a reference range of the profile having a set condition, based on a detection of the laser unit of the profile of the laser irradiated toward the second detector, and the profile of the detected laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Hagiwara teaches a second detector (slit plate 90 and aerial image measurement unit 59, fig. 2; used to measure the “light intensity distribution,” para 0202; construed as a profiler) for detecting a profile of the laser (“light intensity distribution,” para 0202) and adjusting the profile of the laser (“intensity distribution,” para 0062; Hagiwara teaches a method for adjusting the measured intensity distribution by changing the “z position” of the slit plate) irradiated from the laser unit (projection optical system PL, fig. 2) to a reference range (“based on each best focal position Z 1, Z2, . . . , and Zn,” para 0251; construed as a range of focal positions) of the profile having a set condition (“based on the light intensity signal obtained, then corrects the positional deviation of the reticle R3 with respect to the center of the optical axis, based on the coordinate values (x1, y1) of the image forming position,” para 0277), based on a detection of the laser unit of the profile of the laser irradiated toward the second detector (paras 0199-0202), and the profile of the detected laser (“p(y),” para 0205).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Hagiwara, by using the aerial image measurement method using a slit plate 22 and an aerial image measurement unit 59, as taught by Hagiwara, to adjust the laser irradiation unit 930 while in a standby position, as taught by Kim ‘145, in order to obtain and compensate for the spherical aberration of the projection optical system by repeatedly performing detection of the best focal position along the optical axis, for the advantage of preventing distortion in the projection optical system, which is caused by the lateral shift of an originally straight line in an image plane (Hagiwara, paras 0039-0041).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20200036145-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Kim ‘145) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US-20020006561-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sato et al. (US-20150008605-A1).
Kim ‘145 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate includes a mask, and the mask has a first pattern and a second pattern which is different from the first pattern, the first pattern is formed within a plurality of cells formed at the mask, the second pattern is formed outside the plurality of cells, and the exposure pattern is the second pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Sato teaches wherein the substrate includes a mask (“mold pattern is transferred onto the substrate,” para 0037; the “mold pattern” is construed as being a mask, figs. 4A-4E), and the mask has a first pattern (pattern 11a, fig. 4A) and a second pattern (side-mark 19, fig. 4A) which is different from the first pattern (as shown in fig. 4A), the first pattern is formed within a plurality of cells formed at the mask (the shots where pattern 11a is located are construed as the claimed “plurality of cells”), the second pattern (side mark 19, fig. 4A) is formed outside the plurality of cells (pattern 11a, fig. 4A), and the exposure pattern is the second pattern (side mark 19 is construed as being a “exposure pattern”).
Sato, figs. 4A-E
PNG
media_image4.png
1087
897
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Sato, by using a main shot pattern and separate side marks, as taught by Sato, when the laser irradiation unit 930 provides radiation, as taught by Kim ‘145, in order to calculate an overlay error between the main shot pattern and the separate side marks, for the advantage of determining if the overlay error falls within an allowable range, improving the accuracy of the overlay with an underlayer (Sato, paras 0008-0009).
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20200036145-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Kim ‘145) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US-20020006561-A1) and Kim et al. (US-20210178522-A1, hereinafter Kim ‘522).
Regarding claim 17, Kim ‘145 teaches a substrate treating method (“substrate processing device,” para 0001) comprising:
supplying a treating liquid to a substrate (“sprays the treatment solution onto the substrate,” para 0039);
irradiating a laser to the substrate (“irradiates a laser to a substrate,” para 0043) to which the treating liquid is supplied (paras 0053-0054);
supplying a rinsing liquid (“rinse liquid,” para 0042) to the substrate (“rinsing treatment step,” para 0003); and
adjusting a state of an optical module for irradiating the laser (“the controller (400) can control the intensity of the laser irradiated through the laser irradiation unit (930) by controlling the size of the current or power supplied to the light source (960),” para 0056; setting the current or power is construed as the “set condition”), positioned at an outside region (“the standby position is the position where the laser irradiation unit (930) is outside the process position,” para 0049; the standby position is construed as a position that does not “face the support member 340,” para 0049; support member 340 is within the cup 320, fig. 2) of a treating container (cup 320, fig. 2) surrounding a supporter (support member 340, fig. 2; includes shaft 349 and chuck 342, fig. 2) for supporting the substrate
wherein the optical module (laser irradiation unit 900, fig. 2) is positioned at a standby position (“standby position,” para 0049) at the supplying the treating liquid, the supplying the rinsing liquid of the optical module (para 0003), and the optical module is positioned at a process position (“process position,” para 0049) at the irradiating the laser to the substrate (para 0043), and
wherein the process position is a position at which the substrate corresponds to a top side of the supporter supporting the substrate (“the process position is the position where the laser irradiation unit (930) faces the support member,” para 0049).
Kim ‘145 does not explicitly disclose forming a puddle; adjusting a state of an optical module for irradiating the laser to a set condition, at an inspection port positioned at an outside region; the adjusting the state of the optical module is positioned at a standby position, the standby position is a position corresponding to a top side of the inspection port.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Taniguchi teaches adjusting a state of an optical module (projection lens system “PL,” figs. 1 and 6) for irradiating the laser to a set condition (“magnification…is changed by moving the lens element 140,” para 0105), at an inspection port (reference plate FP, fig. 6) positioned at an outside region (position of PL shown in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “outside region” relative to the wafer holder 130); the adjusting the state of the optical module is positioned at a standby position (position of PL shown in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “standby position”), the standby position is a position corresponding to a top side of the inspection port (top side of FP, fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Taniguchi, by using a reference plate FP and adjusting the lens elements, as taught by Taniguchi, of the laser irradiation unit 930 while in a standby position, as taught by Kim ‘145, because during semiconductor manufacturing process, multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer and each pattern must be precisely superimposed onto the previous pattern but unintended positional shift tend to occur, causing the optical axis of the projection lens system to become oblique, which can be prevented by calibrating the projection lens system in advance using reference marks on a reference plate (paras 0006-0007, 0045, and 0053).
Kim ‘145 / Taniguchi do not explicitly disclose forming a puddle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Kim ‘522 teaches forming a puddle (“the etching process on the thin layer 12 may be performed in a puddle method,” para 0043).
Kim ‘522, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
502
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘522, by forming a puddle, as taught by Kim ‘522, from the sprayed chemical etchant on the substrate, taught by Kim ‘145, in order to form a liquid layer on the substrate while the substrate stops its rotation, for the advantage of preventing the temperature of the etchant from lowering, which is caused by the rotation of the substrate as the etchant spreads; when the temperature lowers, the etch rate decreases and the thin layer of the substrate cannot be uniformly removed (Kim ‘522, paras 0004-0005 and 0043).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi and Kim ‘522 as set forth above regarding claim 17 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Kim ‘522 teaches wherein the supplying the treating liquid supplies the treating liquid to a substrate (para 0043) in which a rotation is stopped (“the rotation driving unit 120 may stop the rotation of the substrate 10 after the etchant 20 sufficiently spreads towards the edge portion of the substrate 10,” para 0043), the irradiating the laser irradiates the laser to the substrate (para 0046) in which the rotation is stopped (para 0043), and the supplying the rinsing liquid supplies the rinsing liquid (para 0052) to the substrate in which the rotation is stopped (para 0043).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim ‘145 in view of Taniguchi and Kim ‘522 as set forth above regarding claim 17 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Kim ‘145 teaches wherein the supplying the treating liquid, the irradiating the laser to the substrate, the supplying the rinsing liquid is performed sequentially (para 0003). Additionally, Taniguchi teaches the adjusting the state of the optical module (para 0105) is performed before the supplying the treating liquid (“the positional relation (base-line amount) between the reticle mark (more precisely, the center of the projected pattern image of the reticle) and the detection center of the alignment sensor is obtained and stored in advance.,” para 0007; fig. 8 is construed as being conducted in advance of processing) or between the supplying the treating liquid and the irradiating the laser to the substrate (not explicitly disclosed).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR-20200036145-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Kim ‘145) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US-20020006561-A1) and Kim et al. (US-20210178522-A1, hereinafter Kim ‘522) as applied to claims 17-18 above and further in view of Hagiwara et al. (US-20020041377-A1).
Kim ‘145 teaches wherein the optical module (laser irradiation unit 900, fig. 2) comprises:
a laser unit (laser irradiation unit 930, fig. 2) for irradiating the laser (para 0043).
Kim ‘145 does not explicitly disclose an imager for imaging a region to which the laser is irradiated, and wherein the inspection port comprises: a first detector displaying a reference point and checking an irradiation position of the laser and an imaging region of the imager; and a second detector for detecting a profile of the laser, and wherein the adjusting a state of the optical module comprises: adjusting the irradiation position for adjusting a center point of the laser which is irradiated to the first detector to the reference point; adjusting an imaging region for aligning the imaging region to the center point of the laser which has been adjusted to the reference point; and adjusting a profile for detecting the profile of the laser which is irradiated toward to the second detector by the laser unit, adjusting the profile of the laser to a reference range of the profile having the set condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Taniguchi teaches an imager (image pick-up devices 128a and 128b, fig. 6; “CCD,” para 0102; construed as cameras) for imaging a region (area 201, fig. 8) to which the laser is irradiated (fig. 6), and wherein the inspection port (reference plate FP, fig. 6) comprises: a first detector (reference plate 15, fig. 3) displaying a reference point (reference marks 40, 41, fig. 3; reference marks 115a, 115b, fig. 6) and checking an irradiation position of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8; para 0045) and an imaging region (image region 203, fig. 8) of the imager; and wherein the adjusting a state of the optical module (projection lens system “PL,” figs. 1 and 6) comprises: adjusting the irradiation position (fig. 8) for adjusting a center point of the laser (optical axis AX, fig. 8) which is irradiated to the first detector (optical axis AX irradiates to FP, fig. 6) to the reference point (marks 115a and 115b, fig. 6); adjusting an imaging region (adjustment from image 202 to image 203, fig. 8; para 0017) for aligning the imaging region to the center point of the laser (the imaging region 203 aligns over the center RCT when axis AX is aligned at the center RCT, fig. 8) which has been adjusted to the reference point (para 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Taniguchi, by using a images from image pick-up devices to adjust the lens elements, as taught by Taniguchi, of the laser irradiation unit 930, as taught by Kim ‘145, because during semiconductor manufacturing process, multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer and each pattern must be precisely superimposed onto the previous pattern but unintended positional shift tend to occur, causing the optical axis of the projection lens system to become oblique, which can be prevented by calibrating the projection lens system in advance by using a signal processor to analyze images taken of reference marks on a reference plate to ensure proper optical axis alignment (paras 0006-0007, 0045, 0053, and 0102).
Kim ‘145/Taniguchi do not explicitly disclose a second detection member for detecting a profile of the laser; adjusting a profile for detecting the profile of the laser which is irradiated toward to the second detector by the laser unit, adjusting the profile of the laser to a reference range of the profile having the set condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods, Hagiwara teaches a second detection member (slit plate 90 and aerial image measurement unit 59, fig. 2; used to measure the “light intensity distribution,” para 0202; construed as a profiler) for detecting a profile of the laser (“intensity distribution,” para 0062); adjusting a profile for detecting the profile of the laser (Hagiwara teaches a method for adjusting the measured intensity distribution by changing the “z position” of the slit plate) which is irradiated toward to the second detector by the laser unit (projection optical system PL, fig. 2), adjusting the profile of the laser to a reference range (“based on each best focal position Z 1, Z2, . . . , and Zn,” para 0251; construed as a range of focal positions) of the profile having the set condition (“based on the light intensity signal obtained, then corrects the positional deviation of the reticle R3 with respect to the center of the optical axis, based on the coordinate values (x1, y1) of the image forming position,” para 0277).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim ‘145, in view of the teachings of Hagiwara, by using the aerial image measurement method using a slit plate 22 and an aerial image measurement unit 59, as taught by Hagiwara, to adjust the laser irradiation unit 930 while in a standby position, as taught by Kim ‘145, in order to obtain and compensate for the spherical aberration of the projection optical system by repeatedly performing detection of the best focal position along the optical axis, for the advantage of preventing distortion in the projection optical system, which is caused by the lateral shift of an originally straight line in an image plane (Hagiwara, paras 0039-0041).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Page 13 of the arguments states that “supporter,” “detector,” and “imager” are terms that would connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that “supporter,” “detector,” and “imager” are simply substitutes for “means for supporting,” “means for detecting,” and “means for imaging.” The examiner also notes that the arguments do not specifically state what structure would be implied by the use of these terms for one of ordinary skill.
The Office action provides two options in order to avoid 112(f) claim interpretation—(1) add sufficient structure to the claims or (2) show that the claims already have sufficient structure (see pages 6-7 of the Office action filed 28 November 2025). Recommend pursuing either of these options to avoid interpretation of the claims under 35 USC 112(f). However, the examiner notes that the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation does not present a problem because the Specification provides sufficient structure to cover the functional limitations that are attributed to the “supporter,” “detector,” and “imager.”
Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 112
Page 15 of the arguments state that the limitation “adjusting a state of the optical module at an inspection port provided at the standby position to a set condition before the optical module is moved to the process position” is not a contingent limitation. However, the examiner disagrees. Further, the argument is conclusory and does not provide a reason explaining why the Applicant believes the limitation is not a contingent limitation.
The guidance regarding contingent limitations is found in MPEP 2111.04.II. This section of the MPEP provide an example of a contingent limitation where “a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens” but “step A” is not “required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim” if the “claimed invention may be practiced without … the first ... condition happening.” Thus, to be a contingent limitation, the claim must be a method claim, and there must be a condition that is not positively recited. The examiner notes that the limitation above meets both of these criteria. Claim 1 is a method claim, and the “adjusting” step requires a condition: “before the optical module is moved to the process position,” which is not positively recited in the claim. As a result, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear that the “adjusting” step must be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 103
Page 18 of the arguments references paragraph 0007 of Taniguchi (US20020006561A1) and states that Taniguchi teaches using a laser such that “multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer.” The examiner agrees with this statement.
However, page 18 then states that Taniguchi “does not disclose or suggest irradiating a laser ‘to a region of the substrate with an exposure pattern formed thereon so that an actual pattern corresponding to the exposure pattern is formed.’” The examiner disagrees with this statement. Instead, the examiner agrees with the previous statement that Taniguchi teaches using a laser such that “multiple layers of different circuit patterns are exposed onto the wafer.”
It is not clear how the Applicant is trying to distinguish their invention over that taught by Taniguchi. For example, the Applicant mentions on page 18 of the arguments that Taniguchi teaches projecting a beam onto a wafer that is coated with photoresist using a reticle. Although not claimed, the Applicant’s Specification’s states the following:
“The photolithography process for forming a pattern on the wafer includes an exposing process. The exposing process is an operation which is previously performed for cutting a semiconductor integrated material attached to the wafer into a desired pattern. The exposing process may have various purposes such as forming a pattern for an etching and forming a pattern for the ion implantation. In the exposing process, the pattern is drawn in on the wafer with a light using a mask, which is a kind of 'frame'. When the light is exposed to the semiconductor integrated material on the wafer, for example, a resist on the wafer, chemical properties of the resist change according to a pattern by the light and the mask. When a developing liquid is supplied to a resist which chemical properties have changed according to the pattern, the pattern is formed on the wafer” (paragraph 0003 of the Specification in the Instant Application).
Similar to Taniguchi, the Specification appears to be directed to using a laser to expose a wafer that is coated with photoresist (or “resist”) using a reticle (or a “mask”). Thus, based on the Specification, it is not clear how these features described in Taniguchi would cause the Applicant’s invention to be distinguishable over the prior art.
Pages 18-19 of the arguments acknowledge that Kim ‘145 is directed to a liquid-based substrate treating apparatus. The examiner agrees with the Applicant. The examiner notes that Kim ‘145 is used to teach the limitation “treating a substrate by supplying a liquid to the substrate.”
However, pages 18-19 state that because Taniguchi does not teach a liquid-based substrate treating apparatus, then it would be non-obvious to combine Kim ‘145 with Taniguchi.
The examiner disagrees. The basis for using Taniguchi as a modifying reference was that Taniguchi is “in the same field of endeavor of substrate treating methods” (page 12 of the Office action filed 28 November 2025). The examiner determined that the field of endeavor was “substrate treating methods” based on paragraph 0002 of the Specification, which discloses that “embodiments of the inventive concept described herein relate to a substrate treating apparatus and a substrate treating method, more specifically, a substrate treating apparatus and a substrate treating method for treating a substrate by heating the substrate.” Although the Applicant appears to argue that their field of endeavor should be limited to liquid-based substrate treating apparatuses, the Specification discloses that the embodiments in the Specification are directed to substrate treating methods. The MPEP states that: “when determining whether the ‘relevant field of endeavor’ test is met, the examiner should consider ‘explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention’” (MPEP 2141.01.a.I). Thus, based on what the Specification discloses as being the subject matter of the patent application, the examiner submits that “substrate treating methods” is the proper field of endeavor and that “liquid-based substrate treating apparatuses” is not the proper field of endeavor.
In response to applicant's argument on page 19 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Page 19 of the arguments states that Taniguchi does not teach the configuration required in claim 2. However, the examiner does not rely on Taniguchi to teach claim 2 because the primary reference (Kim ‘145) teaches claim 2.
Applicant’s argument regarding the “adjusting” step of claim 1 at the bottom of page 19 is conclusory, and no evidence is provided to support the argument. Per the rejection above, the examiner maintains that Taniguchi teaches the “adjusting” step of claim 1.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights