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 .
Amendment to the claims were submitted on 07/29/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are under consideration
Claim 6 is canceled
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/29/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US20170340995A1, published 2017) in view of Kobayashi (JP2016040801A, published 2016, references made to provided translation) and Oh (US20170018442A1, published 2017).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 21,
Aida teaches a chemical liquid supply system and method for use in a manufacturing process of semiconductor devices [0002-0003], comprising of a pressurized gas supplied into a chemical liquid supply tank and a filter between the tank and the nozzle [fig 1, 0033], where the gas may be nitrogen or the like (implying other gases may also be used) [0016], reading on instant claims 8 and 9.
Aida teaches the chemical liquid is a resist liquid, developing solution, or cleaning liquid [0016].
Aida fails to teach an electricity removing treatment.
Oh, analogous art, teaches a unit for supplying a treatment liquid comprising of a tank that accommodates the treatment liquid, a pipe connected to the tank, and a static electricity removing member that removes static electricity from the treatment liquid [abstract], where the static electricity removing member may include a body of a conductive material that is immersed in the treatment in the tank [0010]. Oh further teaches that while the treatment liquid circulates, static electricity due to friction is generated, and the static electricity is contained in the treatment liquid in the tank. However, if the treatment liquid containing static electricity is supplied to the substrate, the substrate may be damaged due to a spark or contaminated during the process [0005].
As both Oh and Aida teach chemical liquid supply systems including a chemical liquid supply tank, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the static electricity removing member of Oh with the chemical liquid supply tank of Aida for the benefits disclosed by Oh.
Aida fails to teach the moisture content of the pressurized gas.
Kobayashi, analogous art, teaches manufacturing a semiconductor device [page 2 paragraph 3] where a low-humidity gas supplied by a gas supply line used here can be, for example, dry air (containing argon) having a dew point temperature of about −40 ° C or less. The dew point of dry air is preferably about -110 °C to -120 ° C. As the low-humidity gas, a low oxygen concentration gas (for example, nitrogen gas) whose humidity is controlled can be used instead of dry air [page 4 paragraph 10-12], where 0.001ppm by mass moisture content would be a dew point of about -115 °C and 0.01ppm by mass moisture content would be a dew point of about -106 °C (as exemplified by www.processsensing.com/en-us/humidity-calculator/), overlapping the instant claim ranges, reading on instant claims 1, 3-4, and 21.
As both Aida and Kobayashi teach gas supply lines which may include nitrogen gas, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the pressurized gas supply would be centralized in a semiconductor manufacturing environment, including the pressurized gas used to pressurize the developing solution as disclosed by Aida, where the low moisture dry air gas supply disclosed by Kobayashi could also be used in the process of Aida, functioning comparably in pressurizing the liquid supply tank.
That is, the substitution of the dry air gas of Kobayashi for the nitrogen gas of Aida, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of functioning as a pressurizing gas. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Regarding claim 19,
While silent to a gas purification step using a gas filter, using a filter to purify dry air (clean dry air) prior to use in a semiconductor manufacturing environment would be known and expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as exemplified by Atlas Copco (https://www.atlascopco.com/en-us/compressors/wiki/compressed-air-articles/cda-clean-dry-air-semiconductor-industry).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US20170340995A1, published 2017) in view of Kobayashi (JP2016040801A, published 2016, references made to provided translation) and Oh (US20170018442A1, published 2017) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JinHong (jh-gas.com/gas/argon/, published 2010).
Regarding claims 2 and 5,
Aida et al. teaches their pressurized gas may be nitrogen or the like, but fails to explicitly teach high purity Argon as the pressurized gas.
JinHong discloses a commercially available inert gas Argon, with purity as high as 99.9999% for use in industries such as electronic semiconductors requiring stable and continuous supply with a high volume of gas demand [page 6].
As both teach inert gases for use in semiconductor manufacturing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the high purity Argon of JinHong could be used comparably as the pressurized gas of Aida, particularly as the Argon of JinHong is commercially available, and able to provide stable and continuous supply with a high volume of gas demand, reading on instant claims 2 and 5.
Claims 7, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aida (US20170340995A1, published 2017) in view of Kobayashi (JP2016040801A, published 2016, references made to provided translation) and Oh (US20170018442A1, published 2017) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kamimura (US20190219924A1, published 7/18/2019).
Regarding claims 7 and 10-18,
Aida et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Aida fails to teach the composition of their chemical liquid.
Kamimura, analogous art, teaches a chemical liquid treatment solution for a semiconductor for use as a developer, prewet liquid, or the like [0042, 0077].
Kamimura teaches their chemical liquid contains an organic solvent which may preferably be propylene glycol monomethyl ether [0044, 0051], reading on instant claim 7.
Kamimura teaches inclusion of an ion of at least one kind of atom selected from the group consisting of an Fe atom, a Cr atom, a Ni atom, and a Pb atom, in which in a case where the chemical liquid contains one kind of the ion, a content of the ion is 0.1 to 100 mass ppt, in a case where the chemical liquid contains two or more kinds of the ions, a content of each of the ions is 0.1 to 100 mass ppt [0010], or particles containing at least one kind of atom selected from the group consisting of a Cr atom, a Zn atom, an Al atom, and a Pb atom, in which a content of the particles in the chemical liquid with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid is 0.1 to 100 mass ppt [0011] , overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, reading on instant claims 10-12.
Kamimura teaches their chemical liquid contains an organic impurity [0097] which may be dioctyl phthalate (DOP, boiling point: 385° C) [0136], where in a case where the organic impurity having a boiling point equal to or higher than 250° C contains an organic impurity having a boiling point equal to or higher than 300° C, the content of the organic impurity having a boiling point equal to or higher than 300° C with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid is preferably 0.001 to 30 mass ppm (1 ppb to 30000 ppb) [0138], overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, reading on instant claims 16-18.
Kamimura teaches a content of the water in the chemical liquid is 0.01% to 1% by mass [0014], overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, reading on instant claims 13-15.
Kamimura teaches their chemical liquid which has excellent defect inhibition performance and hardly breaks a transfer pipe line that a device for manufacturing the chemical liquid comprises at the time of manufacturing the chemical liquid [0007].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the liquid composition of Kamimura as the developer solution in the method of Aida would result in a comparable and expected development process, as well as for the benefits disclosed by Kamimura.
Regarding claim 20,
Aida fails to teach the processing steps disclose in instant claim 20.
Kamimura teaches examples of the use of the chemical liquid include a prewet solution with which a substrate is coated before a step of forming a resist film by using a photoresist composition so as to ameliorate the coating properties of the composition, a developer for developing an exposed resist film formed of a photoresist composition, and a rinse solution for washing a developed film. Furthermore, the chemical liquid can be used as a diluent of resist materials contained in a photoresist composition [0286], reading on instant claim 20.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the semiconductor device processing steps taught by Kamimura with the liquid chemical supply method of Aida as well-known processing steps in the art for semiconductor device manufacturing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/29/2026 with respect to the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the new claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights