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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-23 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 8, 13, and 15 have been amended.
The interpretation of “an adjustment mechanism” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claim 13 is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. In claim 22, the term “an adjustment mechanism” is still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the limitation “an adjustment mechanism . . . to adjust an inclination of the wafer” includes a placeholder term, “mechanism,” coupled with functional language, “adjustment . . . to adjust an inclination of the wafer,” and the claim does not recite sufficient structure to perform that function.
The objection to claim 15 is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. Claim 22 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claim 22 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because the term “an adjustment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Applicant argues that this rejection has been overcome because the adjustment mechanism has been amended to avoid the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 22 has not been amended.
The rejection of claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant) in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536) has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2-6, 12, 14, 18, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Nishimura, Kawabuchi, Suzuki et al. (US 6,270,619), Shinozaki et al. (US 2015/0082613), Woods (US 2004/0060580), Randhawa et al. (US 2019/0378729), and Tsai et al. (US 2003/0047194) are also withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), and Woods (US 2004/0060580), Applicant argues that neither Nishimura nor Kawabuchi teaches or suggests the claimed limitation of maintaining a fixed relative position between the cleaning liquid and gas supply nozzles and the wafer. This is not persuasive because this limitation is directed to a difference in intended use, and the apparatus of Nishimura, in view of Kawabuchi, could be used as claimed. For example, Nishimura only discloses that the lifting pins 105 can move the wafer in an up/down direction (paragraph 89); therefore, it is understood that the apparatus may be used without moving the lifting pins, which would meet the claimed fixed relative position of the washing liquid jetting portion and the wafer. And in Kawabuchi, the second inert gas discharge nozzle 40 could be used in a fixed position with the wafer being fixed. The claimed usage wherein the relative positions are fixed is a mere intended use capable of being met by the prior art. The Examiner believes this interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s own specification which indicates that the facing member (33) is vertically movable (paragraph 60) relative to the wafer, and the wafer inclination adjustment mechanisms (39) can adjust the inclination and a height of the wafer (paragraphs 59, 64). The specification further indicates that each cleaning and drying mechanism does not rotate or turn, and when the wafer is cleaned or dried, a relative position between the cleaning liquid or gas supply nozzle and the wafer is fixed (paragraph 63), indicating that the limitation refers to a usage of the apparatus.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
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: “an adjustment mechanism” in claim 22.
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 2, 3, 5, 6, 12-14, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12-14, 17-19, and 21-23 recite the limitation "the wafer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it can refer to “wafer” and “a second wafer.” Note that claims 1 and 15 recite “the wafer,” which, based on context, is understood not to refer to the second wafer.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 22 recite the limitation "the wafer holding stage" or “the holding stage.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because it can refer to “a wafer holding stage” and “a second wafer holding stage.” Note that claims 1 and 15 recite “the wafer holding stage,” which, based on context, is understood not to refer to the second wafer holding stage.
Claims 12, 14, 17-19, 21, and 23 recite the limitation "the cleaning liquid supply nozzle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it can refer to “a cleaning liquid supply nozzle” or “a second cleaning liquid supply nozzle.”
Claims 12, 17, 18, 21 recite the limitation "the gas supply nozzle." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it can refer to “a gas supply nozzle” or “a second gas supply nozzle.”
Regarding claim 22, claim limitation “an adjustment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As best as can be determined, the claimed “adjustment mechanism” refers to elements 39 shown in Figures 7 and 9. The figures appear to show elements 39 in schematic form as being objects that are attached to the wafer holding stages, without showing sufficient detail to depict the actual structure of the mechanisms. Additionally, the specification appears to only describe the function of the mechanisms, but does not appear to describe their structures. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant) in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura discloses a wafer treatment device comprising: a front-end-transfer box having one side and an other side (Figure 4: 16); a load port attached to the one side of the front-end transfer box and configured to hold a wafer carrier, the wafer carrier carrying a wafer (30, 31, 33); a cleaning unit attached to the one side of the front-end transfer box and configured to clean the wafer (82); a processing unit attached to the other side of the front-end transfer box and configured to perform a processing on the wafer, the processing including one selected from a group consisting of an etching process, a sputtering process, and a deposition process (13); and a transfer robot configured to transfer the wafer between the load port, the cleaning unit, and the processing unit (32), wherein the cleaning unit includes a wafer holding stage configured to hold the wafer (Figure 6: 101), a cleaning liquid supply nozzle configured to supply cleaning liquid onto the wafer held by the wafer holding stage (102), and the cleaning unit and the load port are arranged on the one side of the front-end transfer box (Figure 4: 16, 30, 31, 33, 82), the cleaning liquid supply nozzle is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to an upper surface of the wafer for a first predetermined period with a relative position between the cleaning liquid supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed in a radial direction, a circumferential direction, and an axial direction of the wafer (101, 102, 105; note that being fixed in position is intended use of the claimed apparatus).
Nishimura does not expressly disclose a gas supply nozzle configured to supply gas onto the wafer held by the wafer holding stage; and the gas supply nozzle is configured to supply the gas to the upper surface of the wafer for a second predetermined period with a relative position between the gas supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed in the radial direction, the circumferential direction, and the axial direction of the wafer.
Kawabuchi discloses a substrate processing apparatus having a substrate liquid processing apparatus (10) including a cleaning liquid discharge nozzle (26), a rinse liquid discharge nozzle (32), a substitution liquid discharge nozzle (36), and inert gas discharge nozzles (39, 40) for performing a dry process.
Because it is known in the art to have a liquid discharge nozzles and gas discharge nozzles, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing the ability to perform cleaning and drying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gas supply nozzle configured to supply gas onto the wafer held by the wafer holding stage; and the gas supply nozzle is configured to supply the gas to the upper surface of the wafer for a second predetermined period with a relative position between the gas supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed in the radial direction, the circumferential direction, and the axial direction of the wafer.
Note that using the apparatus such that the cleaning liquid supply nozzle is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to an upper surface of the wafer for a first predetermined period with a relative position between the cleaning liquid supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed in a radial direction, a circumferential direction, and an axial direction of the wafer; and the gas supply nozzle is configured to supply the gas to the upper surface of the wafer for a second predetermined period with a relative position between the gas supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed in the radial direction, the circumferential direction, and the axial direction of the wafer is intended use and capable of being met by the prior art. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), and further in view of Woods (US 2004/0060580).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the cleaning unit further includes a plurality of functional components, each functional component includes the cleaning liquid supply nozzle, the gas supply nozzle, and a sucking nozzle configured to suck the cleaning liquid and the gas, and the plurality of functional components are disposed to face the upper surface of the wafer at least during the first predetermined period or the second predetermined period.
Woods discloses a wafer cleaning and drying system (100) including various embodiments of proximity heads arranged to face a wafer (108), wherein at least an embodiment includes a proximity head (Figure 7A, 7B: 106) with plural source inlets (302, 306) and plural source outlets (304). Woods discloses that source inlets may supply deionized water or IPA vapor with nitrogen gas, and source outlets have a vacuum applied (paragraphs 75, 95, 103-105).
Because it is known in the art to clean and dry using a proximity head with plural sets of functional components, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known structure for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the cleaning unit further includes a plurality of functional components, each functional component includes the cleaning liquid supply nozzle, the gas supply nozzle, and a sucking nozzle configured to suck the cleaning liquid and the gas, and the plurality of functional components are disposed to face the upper surface of the wafer at least during the first predetermined period or the second predetermined period. Note that supplying the claimed fluids and operating the apparatus as claimed is intended use capable of being met by modified Nishimura. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 15, and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the wafer treatment device as defined by the claim 1 or claim 15. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), to further include the configuration of the front-end transfer box, cleaning unit, processing unit, and transfer robot as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights