DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 9/5/2025.
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 (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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-14 are pending.
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
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, 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, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US 2004/0115567) in view of Tokoshima (US 2014/0230908) and Fujiwara (US 2016/0086810).
Regarding claim 1, Mandal teaches a substrate processing apparatus ([0028] and Fig. 4, process module #40) comprising: a substrate holding unit which holds a substrate horizontally ([0028] and Fig. 4, spin chuck #44 with wafer W);
a processing liquid supplying unit which supplies a processing liquid to an upper surface of the substrate ([0029] and Fig. 4, nozzles #54 and related assembly), the processing liquid supplying unit having a first processing liquid nozzle and a second processing liquid nozzle which discharge the processing liquid ([0032] and Fig. 5, nozzles A and B); and
a moving unit which moves the processing liquid supplying unit between a process position at which the first processing liquid nozzle faces the upper surface of the substrate and a retreat position at which the first processing liquid nozzle retreats from positions at which the first processing liquid nozzle faces the upper surface of the substrate ([0029] and Fig. 4, dispense arm #50, base #47, post #48, actuator #49, rotates and has positions towards/away from substrate),
wherein the processing liquid supplying unit includes a first flow path which is formed in the first processing liquid nozzle (Figs. 4-6, chamber #57A), the first flow path extending horizontally (see Fig. 4, #54) and having one end part that faces a central region of the substrate and an other end part that faces a peripheral region of the substrate (Fig. 4, left side of #56 faces center, right side faces periphery), in a state where the processing liquid supplying unit is positioned at the process position,
a second flow path which extends horizontally (Fig. 4, adjacent tube from #52 extends horizontally) as turning back from the one end part of the first flow path, and supplies the processing liquid to the one end part of the first flow path ([0032] and Fig. 5, inlet line #51A),
a side piping which is provided at a lateral position of the first flow path and the second flow path, and supplies the processing liquid to the second processing liquid nozzle (Fig. 5, inlet line #51B),
the first processing liquid nozzle includes a plurality of first discharge ports which are arranged along an extending direction in which the first flow path extends, and which discharges the processing liquid in the first flow path to the upper surface of the substrate ([0032] and Figs. 4-6, nozzle tips #66A), and
a flow rate of the processing liquid discharged from the second processing liquid nozzle is smaller than a flow rate of the processing liquid discharged from the first processing liquid nozzle ([0030]: fluid dispense nozzles may independently dispense one or more fluids at variable flow rates).
Mandal does not teach a turning back flow path having one end connected to the one end part of the first flow path, wherein the second flow path is connected to an other end of the turning back flow path.
However, Tokoshima teaches the above (Tokoshima – [0048]-[0049] and Figs. 1-2C, retention portion #1 embodied as portion #33 in Fig. 2C).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the processing liquid supplying unit (first processing liquid nozzle) of Mandal to comprise the “turning back” supply unit of Tokoshima in order to provide a processing solution at stable concentration to a use point (Tokoshima – [0045]) at low cost (Tokoshima – [0046]).
Modified Mandal does not teach wherein the side piping includes a horizontal part which extends in a horizontal direction, and a hanging part which is connected to the horizontal part, and straightly extends to a tip part thereof from the horizontal part in an oblique direction that is oblique with respect to the horizontal direction so as to be directed downwardly as going away from the horizontal part, nor wherein the second processing liquid nozzle is connected to the tip part of the hanging part, and has a single discharge part provided at a tip end thereof, nor wherein a single second discharge port is formed at the single discharge part as extending in the oblique direction in which the hanging part straightly extends, and is an only one discharge port from which the processing liquid supplied through the side piping is discharged.
However, Fujiwara teaches this feature (Fujiwara – Figs. 1-2, nozzle #122 has straight part #182, angled part #122, and tip part with a single port).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Mandal apparatus by substituting the second nozzle structure of Fujiwara in order to perform substrate processing while suppressing deleterious residues (Fujiwara – [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Mandal teaches wherein the processing liquid supplying unit further includes a flow path forming pipe in which the second flow path is formed (Figs. 4-6, portion of inlet line #51B as directly connected to #57B), and the flow path forming pipe is fixed with the first processing liquid nozzle (see Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Mandal teaches wherein the moving unit includes a holder that commonly supports the flow path forming pipe and the side piping (Fig. 5, horizontal plate #53).
Regarding claim 6, Mandal teaches wherein the moving unit includes a pivoting unit which turns the processing liquid supplying unit around a pivoting axis along a vertical direction ([0029] and Fig. 4, actuator #49 rotates the arm).
Regarding claim 7, Mandal teaches wherein the other end part of the first flow path is located closer to the pivoting axis than the one end part of the first flow path (Fig. 4, right side of #56 is closer to #48 than left side of #56), and the one end part of the first flow path and the second nozzle faces the central region of the substrate and the other end part of the first flow path faces the peripheral region of the substrate (Fig. 4, left side of #56 faces center, right side faces periphery), in the state where the processing liquid supplying unit is positioned at the process position (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Mandal teaches wherein the moving unit further includes a pivoting shaft which extends in the vertical direction ([0029] and Fig. 4, post #48), the pivoting unit gives a driving force around the pivoting axis to the pivoting shaft, and the pivoting unit turns the pivoting shaft around the pivoting axis, thereby to turn the holder, the flow path forming pipe and the side piping around the pivoting axis ([0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Mandal teaches wherein the second processing liquid nozzle faces the upper surface of the substrate when the processing liquid supplying unit is positioned at the process position, and retreats from positions at which the second processing liquid nozzle faces the upper surface of the substrate when the processing liquid supplying unit is positioned at the retreat position ([0028] and Fig. 4, shows processing position and a “retreat” position is described).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US 2004/0115567), Tokoshima (US 2014/0230908), and Fujiwara (US 2016/0086810), as applied to claims 1, 4-8, and 11 above, further in view of Sotoku (US 2014/0261572), with Keigler (US 2012/0308346) as a supporting reference.
The limitations of claims 1, 4-8, and 11 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Mandal does not explicitly teach wherein the moving unit further includes a ball screw that raises and lowers the pivoting shaft, and an electric motor that gives a driving force to the ball screw (Mandal simply describes a “motor-driven actuator” – [0029]).
However, Sotoku teaches wherein a moving unit further includes a ball screw that raises and lowers a pivoting shaft, and an electric motor that gives a driving force to the ball screw (Sotoku – [0103] and Fig. 1, nozzle moving unit with ball screw mechanism and motor).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the moving unit of modified Mandal with that of Sotoku since Keigler teaches that linear motors and ball screws are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose (Keigler – [0181]). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US 2004/0115567), Tokoshima (US 2014/0230908), and Fujiwara (US 2016/0086810), as applied to claims 1, 4-8, and 11 above, further in view of Mitsuhashi (US 5,962,070).
The limitations of claims 1, 4-8, and 11 are set forth above.
The Examiner notes Mitsuhashi was cited originally by the Applicant on the IDS dated 5/17/2018 in the parent application (since issued as US 11,670,523), by Applicant again on the IDS dated 4/27/2023 of the instant application, and also cited by the Examiner on the PTO-892 dated 8/3/2020 in the parent application.
Regarding claims 13-14, Mandal modified by Tokoshima and Fujiwara do not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mitsuhashi teaches the claimed liquid storing part (Mitsuhashi – Fig. 9, volume around trap #11b), discharge flow path connected to each of the plurality of first discharge ports and the liquid storing part (Mitsuhashi – Fig. 9, passages #11a and #11c), wherein the discharge flow path includes a vertical flow path (Mitsuhashi – Fig. 9, passage #11a), and an inclined flow path (Mitsuhashi – Fig. 9, passage #11c).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Mandal apparatus to comprise the fluid supply structure of Mitsuhashi in order to avoid discharge disturbances due to bubbles (Mitsuhashi – C6, L67-C7, L2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 1 and Mandal have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Fujiwara remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Regarding Tokoshima, Applicant’s arguments (pg. 9) have been considered but are not persuasive. Particularly, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that: “the retention portion 33 as a whole cannot be assumed to have and clearly does not suggest incorporating the claimed ‘a turning back flow path’ ”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the limitation “a turning back flow path” does not inherently invoke any conventionally-known structure. As such, the limitation must be construed in light of its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the disclosure as a whole. While the Examiner notes the “turning back flow path” is depicted in various figures, it would be improper for the Examiner to import limitations from the disclosure into the claims themselves.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Tokoshima displays a structure which can reasonably be considered (as a whole, not a portion) to have a “turning back” structure- similar to a colloquial “switchback” structure. If Applicant feels the particulars of their “turning back flow path” are different from the structure of Tokoshima, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims with additional structural limitations (e.g., the “inlet portion”, “outlet portion”, “flow direction” as argued).
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718