Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2017/0062244 to Sato.
In Reference to Claim 1
Sato discloses a substrate processing liquid (Paragraph 19) used for removing a liquid on a substrate having a pattern formation surface, comprising: a sublimable substance (Paragraph 19); a solvent (Paragraph 19 discloses a firs solvent) that dissolves the sublimable substance; and an auxiliary agent (Paragraph 63, Sato discloses add water as a second solvent) 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 (Paragraph 63, Sato teaches adding the second solvent causes elimination of an association state of the sublimation material. The association state of the sublimation material is recited as the aggregate of sublimation material in Paragraph 18. Therefore, it is obvious that the solubility of the sublimation material is increased by adding the second solvent), wherein the solubility is a maximum amount of the sublimable substance that can dissolve in the solvent, and wherein the particles of the sublimable substance, the amount of which exceeds the solubility, are dispersed.
In Reference to Claim 2
Sato discloses the auxiliary agent is a crystallization inhibitor (Sato teaches in Paragraph 63, adding the second solvent causes elimination of an association state (aggregation) of the sublimation material) for inhibiting crystallization of the sublimable substance in the solution.
In Reference to Claim 5
Sato discloses a substrate processing method, comprising:(a) preparing the substrate processing liquid according to claim 1 (Fig. 2, S3);(b) supplying the substrate processing liquid prepared in the operation (Fig. 2, S4) (a) onto a front surface of a substrate on which a pattern is formed, 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 (Fig. 2, S5); and (d) sublimating the solidified film, to thereby remove the solidified film from the front surface of the substrate. (Fig. 2, S7)
In Reference to Claim 12
Sato discloses A substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a storage part (Fig. 4, 316) configured to store therein the substrate processing liquid according toa storage part configured to store therein the substrate processing liquid according toa processing liquid supply part configured to supply (Fig. 4, 317) the substrate processing liquid stored in the storage part onto a front surface of a substrate (Fig. 4, 6) on which a pattern is formed.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of US Patent Publication 2003/0165756 to Ono.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 4
Sato discloses the sublimable substance is cyclohexanone (Paragraph 19)
Sato does not teach adjust PH and the auxiliary agent is ammonia.
Ono teaches 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)
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 Ono into the design of Sato. Doing so, would result in aqueous ammonia being used as the second solvent. Both inventions of Sato and Ono are in the same field of endeavor, Ono provides a solvent option for the process with a predictable result of success.
Claims 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20190085129 to Nishimura.
In Reference to Claim 6
Sato discloses the storage of the process liquid.
Sato 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 Sato. Doing so, would result in an ultrasonic vibration provided in the processing fluid storage tank. Both inventions of Nishimura and Sato are in the same field of endeavor, Nishimura teaches a method of reducing damage given to the substrate.
In Reference to Claim 7
Sato discloses the operation (a) has (a-1) preparing a supersaturated solution of the sublimable substance (Fig. 2, S3); (a-2) depositing the sublimable substance from the supersaturated solution (Fig. 2, S4); (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 61)); 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
Sato discloses the storage of the process liquid.
Sato 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 Sato. Doing so, would result in an ultrasonic vibration provided in the processing fluid storage tank. Both inventions of Nishimura and Sato 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 Sato and Nishimura as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CN104130157 to Liu.
In Reference to Claim 8
Sato discloses the substrate processing method.
The combination of Nishimura and Sato as applied to Claim 8 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 Sato 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 Sato and Nishimura as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of JP2010153475 to Haromoto.
In Reference to Claim 10
Sato discloses discharging the substrate processing liquid to the front surface of the substrate from a nozzle.
The combination of Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato 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
Sato discloses feeding the substrate processing liquid to the nozzle from the storage bath.
The combination of Sato 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 Sato 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 Sato 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 filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument filed on 5/26/26 is based on the amended claim. The argument is moot in terms of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 6/30/26
Prosecution Insights