Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/183,628

APPARATUS FOR TREATING SUBSTRATE AND METHOD FOR TREATING A SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 14, 2023
Examiner
LU, JIONG-PING
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Semes Co.,Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
779 granted / 935 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
989
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 935 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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. 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 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. Claim Objections Claims 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 7 , the phrase “a substrate 5” in line 1 should be “a substrate [[5]]”. Regarding claim 11, the phrase “a plurality of patterns 5” in line 2 should be “a plurality of patterns [[5]]”. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papanu et al. (WO2007030476). Regarding claim 1, Papanu discloses a substrate treating method (abstract) comprising: pre-treating a substrate by cleaning the substrate (step 350, Fig. 3 and paragraph 0023); etching the substrate by supplying an etchant and heating a substrate supplied with the etchant (step 320, Fig. 3; AM-Clean reads on an etchant, paragraph 0026; AM-Clean solution may be heated, paragraph 0031); and post-treating the substrate after the etching the substrate (step 330, Fig. 3 and paragraph 0032), and wherein the pre-treating the substrate, the etching the substrate, and the post-treating the substrate are each performed in different chambers (the pre-treating step is performed in a dry clean module, paragraphs 0023 and 0037; the etching step is performed in a bath containing AM-Clean, paragraphs 0021 and 0026; the post-treating step is performed in a bath containing de-ionized water, paragraphs 0021 and 0035), a substrate on which the pre-treating the substrate is completed is transferred in a dry state to a chamber at which the etching the substrate is performed (from a dry clean module to a wet cleaning module, paragraph 0037), and a substrate on which the etching the substrate is completed is transferred in a wetted state with a liquid to a chamber at which the post-treating the substrate is performed (processed through a sequence of chemical baths, paragraph 0021). 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 of this title, 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US20230168586) in view of Nagamura et al. (US6071376) FILLIN "Identify the prior art relied upon." \d *** \* MERGEFORMAT . Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a substrate treating method (Fig. 10) comprising: etching the substrate by supplying an etchant and heating a substrate supplied with the etchant (Fig. 10, paragraph 0152); and post-treating the substrate after the etching the substrate (rinsing step S50, Fig. 10). Choi is silent about pre-treating a substrate by cleaning the substrate; and wherein the pre-treating the substrate, the etching the substrate, and the post-treating the substrate are each performed in different chambers, a substrate on which the pre-treating the substrate is completed is transferred in a dry state to a chamber at which the etching the substrate is performed, and a substrate on which the etching the substrate is completed is transferred in a wetted state with a liquid to a chamber at which the post-treating the substrate is performed. However, Choi discloses that the etching step is a critical dimension correction process for a photomask to be used in a photolithography step (paragraphs 0003 and 0152). In addition, Nagamura teaches that a photomask to be used in a photolithography step requires an extremely clean surface (lines 7-11, column 1), and any defects or foreign objects beyond the critical resolution are not allowed to occur on the surface of the photomask (lines 21-23, column 1). In particular, Nagamura teaches a cleaning process which ends with a drying step (lines 45-58, column 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the effective cleaning process of Nagamura before and after the critical dimension correction step in the method of Choi, in order to meet the strict cleanliness requirement for the photomask as taught by Nagamura ( lines 7-11 and 21-23, column 1; lines 20-30, column 3) . Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the pre-treating the substrate, the etching the substrate, and the post-treating the substrate are each performed in different chambers (the etching step is performed in a chamber with laser irradiation, Choi, paragraph 0123; cleaning steps are performed in different bathes, Nagamura , Fig. 8), a substrate on which the pre-treating the substrate is completed is transferred in a dry state to a chamber at which the etching the substrate is performed, and a substrate on which the etching the substrate is completed is transferred in a wetted state with a liquid to a chamber at which the post-treating the substrate is performed ( Nagamura , lines 45-58, column 14, the pre-treatment as applied to the modified method of Choi in view of Nagamura is ended with the drying step, therefore, the transfer from the pre-treatment chamber to the etch chamber is carried out in a dry state; no drying was needed before the post-treatment step, therefore, the substrate is transferred in a wetted state from the etching chamber to a wet cleaning chamber, Nagamura , Fig. 8). Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses wherein the etching the substrate includes locally irradiating a laser to a specific region of the substrate in a state at which the etchant remains on the substrate to etch the specific region of the substrate (paragraph 0153), and then replacing an etchant remaining on the substrate by supplying a rinsing liquid to the substrate (Choi, Fig. 10; Nagamura , lines 45-54, column 14). Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the pre-treating the substrate includes: hydrophilizing the substrate by supplying a first treating liquid to the substrate; removing a treatment residue generated from the substrate at the hydrophilizing the substrate by supplying a second treating liquid to the substrate; and drying the substrate, and wherein the hydrophilizing the substrate, the removing the treatment residue, and the drying the substrate are each performed in different chambers ( Nagamura , lines 45-54, column 14; and Fig. 8). Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the post-treating the substrate includes: supplying the second treating liquid to the substrate, applying an ultrasound to a substrate having the second treating liquid remaining thereon, to remove the rinsing liquid and an etching residue generated at the etching the substrate from the substrate ( Nagamura , lines 39-43, column 13; lines 45-54, column 14; and Fig. 8). Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the post-treating the substrate includes: supplying the rinsing liquid after supplying the second treating liquid to the substrate to replace the second treating liquid with the rinsing liquid, and supplying an organic solvent to the substrate after supplying the rinsing liquid to dry the substrate ( Nagamura , lines 14-17 and 45-54, column 14). Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein at the hydrophilizing the substrate, the rinsing liquid is supplied to replace the first treating liquid with the rinsing liquid after the first treating liquid is supplied to the substrate, at the removing the treatment residue, the rinsing liquid is supplied to replace the second treating liquid with the rinsing liquid after the second treating liquid is supplied to the substrate, and a substrate which is wetted with the rinsing liquid is transferred from a chamber at which the hydrophilizing the substrate is performed to a chamber at which the removing the treatment residue is performed ( Nagamura , lines 45-54, column 14; and Fig. 8). Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein a substrate which is wetted with the rinsing liquid is transferred from a chamber at which the removing the treatment residue is performed to a chamber at which the drying the substrate is performed ( Nagamura , lines 45-58, column 14; and Fig. 8). Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the removing the treatment residue includes applying an ultrasound to a substrate at which the second treating liquid remains after the second treating liquid is supplied to the substrate ( Nagamura , lines 39-43, column 13; lines 45-54, column 14). Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the removing the treatment residue includes applying an ultrasound to a substrate at which the second treating liquid remains after the second treating liquid is supplied to the substrate ( Nagamura , lines 39-43, column 13; lines 14-17 and 45-54, column 14). Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the first treating liquid, the second treating liquid, and the rinsing liquid each are supplied to a rotating substrate ( Nagamura , lines 51-52, column 5; and Fig. 9), and the first treating liquid includes an acid and hydrogen peroxide (H.sub.2O.sub.2), and the rinsing liquid includes a deionized water ( Nagamura , 45-54, column 14). The difference between the method disclosed by Nagamura and the method as recited in the instant claim is the order of adding hydrogen peroxide. In the method disclosed by Nagamura , hydrogen peroxide is added in the first treating liquid, while the instant claim recites adding hydrogen peroxide in the second treating liquid. However, changes in sequence of adding ingredients are prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C. Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses a substrate treating method (Fig. 10) comprising: checking a position information of a plurality of patterns formed on a substrate (step S30, paragraph 0151 and Figs. 10-11); supplying an etchant to the substrate (Fig. 10, paragraph 0152); and heating a specific pattern among the plurality of patterns in a state of which the etchant remains on the substrate (paragraph 0153); and supplying a rinsing liquid to the substrate (paragraph 0166). Choi is silent about post-treating by transferring a substrate on which the rinsing liquid has been supplied to a separate chamber to supply a liquid on the substrate, and to apply an ultrasound to a substrate having the liquid remaining thereon. However, Choi discloses that the method is used to perform a critical dimension correction for a photomask to be used in a photolithography step (paragraphs 0003 and 0152). In addition, Nagamura teaches that a photomask to be used in a photolithography step requires an extremely clean surface (lines 7-11, column 1), and any defects or foreign objects beyond the critical resolution are not allowed to occur on the surface of the photomask (lines 21-23, column 1). In particular, Nagamura teaches a cleaning process for removing defects and foreign objects comprising: treating the substrate by transferring the substrate on which the rinsing liquid has been supplied to a separate chamber to supply a liquid on the substrate, and to apply an ultrasound to a substrate having the liquid remaining thereon (lines 39-43, column 13; lines 45-65, column 14; and Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the effective cleaning process of Nagamura after the critical dimension correction step in the method of Choi, in order to meet the strict cleanliness requirement for the photomask before it can be used in a photolithography step as taught by Nagamura ( lines 7-11 and 21-23, column 1; lines 20-30, column 3) . Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses wherein the checking the position information includes checking a position information of the specific pattern formed on the substrate (paragraph 0151 and Figs. 10-11). Regarding claim 13, Choi is silent about the pre-treating step. However, Choi discloses that the method is used to perform a critical dimension correction for a photomask to be used in a photolithography step (paragraphs 0003 and 0152). In addition, Nagamura teaches that a photomask to be used in a photolithography step requires an extremely clean surface (lines 7-11, column 1), and any defects or foreign objects beyond the critical resolution are not allowed to occur on the surface of the photomask (lines 21-23, column 1). In particular, Nagamura teaches a cleaning process comprising: hydrophilizing the substrate by supplying a first treating liquid to the substrate, and removing a treatment residue generated during a process of supplying the first treating liquid by supplying a second treating liquid (lines 45-58, column 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the effective cleaning process to remove any defects and foreign objects on the photomask as taught by Nagamura ( lines 7-11 and 21-23, column 1; lines 20-30, column 3) before the critical dimension correction step in the method of Choi, in order to minimize potential effect of foreign objects on the critical dimension correction step in the method of Choi . Regarding claim 14, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the pre-treating includes: applying the ultrasound to a substrate at which the second treating liquid remains, and drying the substrate by supplying an organic solvent to a rotating substrate ( Nagamura , lines 39-43, column 13; and lines 14-17, column 14). Regarding claim 15, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the supplying the first treating liquid, the supplying the second treating liquid, and the supplying the organic solvent of the pretreating are each performed in different chambers ( Nagamura , lines 44-47, column 12; and Fig. 8), and the checking the position information, the supplying the etchant, the heating the specific pattern, the supplying the rinsing liquid are performed in a same chamber (Choi, paragraphs 0148-0149 and Fig. 10). Regarding claim 16, Choi discloses wherein the heating the specific pattern includes irradiating a laser to the specific pattern (paragraph 0153). Regarding claim 17, Choi discloses wherein the substrate is a mask, and the mask has a first pattern and a second pattern which is different from the first pattern, and the first pattern is formed within a plurality of cells which are formed on the mask, and the second pattern is formed outside of the plurality of cells, and the specific pattern is the second pattern (pattern P1 reads on a first pattern, pattern P2 reads on a second pattern, paragraph 0151 and Fig. 3). Regarding claim 18, Choi discloses wherein the mask further includes a reference mark formed at an edge of the mask, and the checking the position information checks a position information of the reference mark, and checks a position information of the second pattern with reference to the position information of the reference mark (paragraph 0151). Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Nagamura discloses wherein the post-treating applies the ultrasound to the substrate at which the liquid remains, and supplies the rinsing liquid and the organic solvent sequentially to the substrate ( Nagamura , lines 39-43, column 13; lines 14-17 and 45-54, column 14; and Fig. 8). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /JIONG-PING LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598929
ATOMIC LAYER ETCHING OF MOLYBDENUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595413
SILICON NITRIDE ETCHING COMPOSITIONS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593637
CHEMICAL PLANARIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578641
PHOTORESIST AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570522
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AT LEAST ONE FIRST AND ONE SECOND MICROMIRROR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+7.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 935 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month