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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2003/0165756 to Ono.
In Reference to Claim 1
Ono discloses a substrate processing liquid used for removing a liquid on a substrate having a pattern formation surface, comprising: a sublimable substance (Paragraph 53, supply developing solution to a substate); a solvent that dissolves the sublimable substance (Paragraph 53, the developing solution); and an auxiliary agent (Paragraph 53, supplying a cleaning liquid with a pH adjusting liquid) that is added to a solution in which the sublimable substance is dissolved in the solvent to disperse particles of the sublimable substance exceeding the solubility in the solution, wherein the particles of the sublimable substance, the amount of which exceeds the solubility, are dispersed (Paragraph 54, the pH adjusted liquid prevent insoluble substances from cohering, so the insoluble substances is dispersed).
In Reference to Claim 2
Ono discloses the auxiliary agent is a crystallization inhibitor for inhibiting crystallization of the sublimable substance in the solution. (Paragraph 54, the pH adjusted liquid prevent insoluble substances from cohering, so it inhibits the crystallization)
In Reference to Claim 5
Ono discloses A substrate processing method, comprising:(a) preparing the substrate processing liquid (Paragraph 51) according to claim 1; (b) supplying the substrate processing liquid prepared in the operation (a) onto a front surface of a substrate on which a pattern is formed (Paragraph 51, supplying a developing solution onto the substrate), to thereby form a liquid film of the substrate processing liquid on the front surface of the substrate; (c) solidifying the liquid film of the substrate processing liquid, to thereby form a solidified film of the sublimable substance (Paragraph 50 forming a desired resiste pattern); and (d) sublimating the solidified film, to thereby remove the solidified film from the front surface of the substrate. (Paragraph 53)
In Reference to Claim 12
Oho discloses a storage part (Fig. 4, 92) to store therein the substrate processing liquid according to Claim 1 and a processing liquid supply part (Fig. 4, 80) configured to supply the substrate processing liquid stored in the storage part onto a front surface of a substrate (Fig. 4, W) on which a pattern is formed.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0411309 to Otsuji.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 4
Ono discloses the sublimable substance and auxiliary agent performs pH adjustment of the solution so that the zeta potential of the sublimable substance in the solution becomes negative (Paragraph 7), the auxiliary agent is aqueous ammonia (Paragraph 235)
Ono does not teach the detail of the sublimable substance.
Otsuji teaches the sublimable substance is cyclohexanone oxime (Paragraph 8)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Otsuji into the design of Ono. Doing so, would result in the cyclohexanone oxime being used as the sublimable substance being used in the processing solution of Ono. Both inventions of Ono and Otsuji are in the same field of endeavor, Otsuji provides a method of forming a pattern on a substrate with a predictable result of success.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of KR20190085129 to Nishimura.
In Reference to Claim 6
Ono discloses the storage of the process liquid.
Ono does not teach the ultrasonic vibration.
Nishimura teaches the operation (a) includes storing the substrate processing liquid in a storage bath to which ultrasonic vibrator is applied. (Ultrasonic vibration are applied to the second liquid storage portion 42 from the ultrasonic vibrator 304 so that a shock wave is generated in the liquid of the process liquid)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Nishimura into the design of Ono. Doing so, would result in an ultrasonic vibration provided in the processing fluid storage tank. Both inventions of Nishimura and Ono are in the same field of endeavor, Nishimura teaches a method of reducing damage given to the substrate.
In Reference to Claim 7
Ono discloses the operation (a) has (a-1) preparing a supersaturated solution of the sublimable substance (Paragraph 50); (a-2) depositing the sublimable substance from the supersaturated solution (Paragraph 50); (a-3) purifying the substrate processing liquid by adding the auxiliary agent to a solution in which the deposited sublimable substance is dissolved in the solvent (Paragraph 53 and 54); and (a-4) replenishing the storage bath with the substrate processing liquid purified in the operation (a-3). (The Office considers that replenishing step is merely a repeating step during process)
In Reference to Claim 9
Ono discloses the storage of the process liquid.
Ono does not teach the ultrasonic vibration.
Nishimura teaches the operation (a) includes storing the substrate processing liquid in a storage bath to which ultrasonic vibrator is applied. (Ultrasonic vibration are applied to the second liquid storage portion 42 from the ultrasonic vibrator 304 so that a shock wave is generated in the liquid of the process liquid)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Nishimura into the design of Ono. Doing so, would result in an ultrasonic vibration provided in the processing fluid storage tank. Both inventions of Nishimura and Ono are in the same field of endeavor, Nishimura teaches a method of reducing damage given to the substrate.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CN104130157 to Liu.
In Reference to Claim 8
Ono discloses the substrate processing method.
The combination of Nishimura and Ono as applied to Claim8 does not teach the pre-cleaning process.
Liu teaches applying a titanium silicon molecular sieve in the preparing process of cyclohexanone oxime solution (Paragraph 8)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Liu into the combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to Claim 7. Doing so, would result in the precleaning process being adopted into the process of Ono. Both invention of Ono and Liu are in the same field on endeavor, Liu provides a method of preparing the processing fluid which is environment friendly, simple posttreatment, and long service life as disclosed in the abstract of Liu)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of JP2010153475 to Haromoto.
In Reference to Claim 10
Ono discloses discharging the substrate processing liquid to the front surface of the substrate from a nozzle.
The combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to Claim 6 does not teach the ultrasonic vibration in the nozzle.
Haromoto teaches applying ultrasonic vibration (Fig. 1, 47) to the substrate processing liquid inside the nozzle (Fig. 1, 15).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Haromoto into the combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to Claim 6. Doing so, would result in an ultrasonic vibration being applied to the nozzle of the processing liquid. Both inventions of Ono and Nishimura are in the same field of endeavor, Haromoto teaches a method of removing bubble in the processing fluid, so the substrate being cleaned without destroying patterns formed on the substrate.
In Reference to Claim 11
Ono discloses feeding the substrate processing liquid to the nozzle from the storage bath.
The combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to Claim 6 does not teach the ultrasonic vibration in the nozzle.
Haromoto teaches applying ultrasonic vibration (Fig. 1, 47) to the substrate processing liquid inside the nozzle (Fig. 1, 15).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Haromoto into the combination of Ono and Nishimura as applied to Claim 6. Doing so, would result in an ultrasonic vibration being applied to the nozzle of the processing liquid. Both inventions of Ono and Nishimura are in the same field of endeavor, Haromoto teaches a method of removing bubble in the processing fluid, so the substrate being cleaned without destroying patterns formed on the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 have been considered but are moot in terms of the new ground of rejection..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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 Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/25/26