CTFR 18/318,041 CTFR 77093 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The 35 USC (f) interpretation of film processing unit, carry-in/out unit, resist film forming unit, film removing unit, foreign substance removing unit, inverting unit, second inverting unit, and friction reducing film forming unit will be maintained. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that US application 18/671,0903 which is now US patent 12,622,201 does not recite the order of operation in the claims. Applicant also argues that the prior art of Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872), Miyahara (US 2019/0084117), and Kodama et al (US 2019/0212653) all fail to teach or fairly suggest the order of operation of the friction reducing film forming unit as recited in claims 1 and 12. The previous double patenting rejections have been amended to reflect that the previous co-pending application has been patented. Note the apparatus of the prior art teaches the front surface processing substrates and the rear surface processing substrates and a carry-in/carry-out unit that transports the substrates to/from the front and rear processing chambers (forming or removing units). The order of operation of the film forming/removing is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the claims do not recite a controller configured to ensure that the film are formed/removed in the order as recited. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent 12,622,201 in view of Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872). Regarding claims 1 and 12: The patent claims a substrate processing apparatus with a container loading/unloading section (carry-in/out unit) and a foreign substrate removing unit (brush processing section) see claim 1. The patent fails to claim a resist film forming unit and a film removing unit.. Furthermore, the patent fails to claim a processing liquid configured to remove the rear surface film. Though the patent does teach a foreign substance removing unit configured to move a brush along the rear surface of the substrate the patent (see claim 1 of the patent) does not specifically recite the brush is in contact with the rear surface of the substrate after being processed by the film removing unit. The prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches a substrate treatment system with a film forming unit 20, a film removing unit 200, a foreign substance removing unit (scribing brush 370 has a moving mechanism 375) see the paragraph joining paragraphs 13 and 14 of Tsutsumi et al. See also in column 14 lines 1-44 of Tsutsumi et al that the brush contacts the rear surface of the wafer after the cleaning (film removing step). See col. 10 line 25 where Tsutsumi et al recites that the resist film is formed on the front surface of the wafer in the resist coating unit 20. See the abstract where it recites that a coating film on the rear surface is removed. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the teachings of the substrate treatment system of Tsutsumi et al before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is that Tsutsumi et al teaches photolithography processing (resist coating treatment), exposure processing, developing treatment including etching treatment and the apparatus and steps used to ensure a limit on foreign substance contaminating the process result see the abstract and col. 1 lines 22-col. 2 line 11. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the patent with the prior art of Tsutsumi et al. The claims of the patent were discussed above. The claims of the patent fail to recite a film friction reducing film forming unit. Recall Tsutsumi et al teaches forming a film on the rear surface of the substrate see Fig. 2 and the first paragraph of col. 13 of Tsutsumi et al where coating film 300 is recited. The film formed on the rear surface in Tsutsumi et al is interpreted as friction-reducing due to the following excerpt in Tsutsumi et al: According to the above embodiment, the coating film is formed on the rear surface of the wafer W in the coating film forming apparatus 300 immediately after the exposure processing for the wafer W is performed in the exposure processing apparatus 8, so that even if the coating film on the rear surface of the wafer W gets minute scratches during the etching treatment and the transfer of the wafer W before reaching the exposure processing apparatus 8, the rear surface of the wafer W itself is protected by the coating film and thus never scratched (interpreted here as reducing friction). In the photolithography processing subsequently performed, the coating film on the rear surface of the wafer W is removed in the coating film removing apparatus 200 immediately before the exposure processing is performed in the exposure processing apparatus 8, so that the rear surface of the wafer W can be flat without projections and depressions for the exposure processing. Note the apparatus of the prior art teaches the front surface processing substrates and the rear surface processing substrates and a carry-in/carry-out unit that transports the substrates to/from the front and rear processing chambers (forming or removing units). The order of operation of the film forming/removing is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the claims do not recite a controller configured to ensure that the film are formed/removed as recited. Tsutsumi et al refers to horizontally holding the wafer during exposure. Regarding claim 3. The patent recites first and second inverting unit (first substrate reversal section and second substrate reversal sections) see claims 1 and 9. The patent fails to claim the film removing unit supplies the processing liquid to the rear surface of the substrate in a state that the substrate is held with the rear surface thereof facing downwards. The prior art of Tsutsumi et al also teaches an inverting unit (transfer arm 260) and a turning mechanism 363 for supporting the transfer arm 360, a shaft 364 connected to the lower surface of the turning mechanism 363, the raising and lowering mechanism 365 connected to the lower end portion of the shaft 364, and the transfer mechanism 366 for supporting the raising and lowering mechanism 365 have the same configurations as those of the turning mechanism 263, the shaft 264, the raising and lowering mechanism 265, and the transfer mechanism 266 in the coating film removing apparatus 200, and thus can inver t the front and rear surfaces of the wafer W held by the transfer arm 360, and move the wafer W in the horizontal direction (the X-direction) and raise and lower the wafer W. that can invert the front and rear surfaces of the wafer see Tsutsumi et al col. 10 lines 47-57. Turning mechanisms 263 and 363 are interpreted as the inverting units of Tsutsumi et al. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the teachings inverting the wafer to the rear surface so that that the coating film can be removed on the rear surface in any treatment/processing steps as desired enhances the apparatus to treat the desired surfaces of the wafer being top, rear, or edge. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the patent with the prior art of Tsutsumi et al. Regarding claim 4. The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the foreign substance removing unit performs a processing of removing a foreign substance on the rear surface of the substrate in a state that the substrate is held with the rear surface thereof facing downwards. See claim 1 of the patent where the brush removes foreign substances from the second (rear) surface of the substrate. See claim 1 also of the patent also recites that the brush has a rotator to rotate the brush and a horizontal mover to horizontally move the brush on the second surface (rear surface) of the substrate. Regarding claim 5. The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising: an inverting unit configured to invert the rear surface of the substrate upside down, wherein the foreign substance removing unit processes the substrate after being inverted by the inverting unit, and the foreign substance removing unit performs a processing of removing a foreign substance on the rear surface of the substrate in a state that the substrate is held with the rear surface thereof facing upwards. See claim 1 of the patent recites that the substrate reversal section (inverting unit) flips the substrate to face the second surface upward (rear surface). Claim 9 of the patent recites the first substrate reversal section, the second substrate reversal section, and reversal imaging section. Regarding claim 6. The patent recites first and second inverting unit (first substrate reversal section and second substrate reversal sections) see claims 1 and 9. The patent fails to claim the film removing unit supplies the processing liquid to the rear surface of the substrate in a state that the substrate is held with the rear surface thereof facing downwards, and the inverting unit inverts the rear surface of the substrate, which is obtained after being processed by the film removing unit, upside down. The prior art of Tsutsumi et al also teaches an inverting unit (transfer arm 260) and a turning mechanism 363 for supporting the transfer arm 360, a shaft 364 connected to the lower surface of the turning mechanism 363, the raising and lowering mechanism 365 connected to the lower end portion of the shaft 364, and the transfer mechanism 366 for supporting the raising and lowering mechanism 365 have the same configurations as those of the turning mechanism 263, the shaft 264, the raising and lowering mechanism 265, and the transfer mechanism 266 in the coating film removing apparatus 200, and thus can inver t the front and rear surfaces of the wafer W held by the transfer arm 360, and move the wafer W in the horizontal direction (the X-direction) and raise and lower the wafer W. that can invert the front and rear surfaces of the wafer see Tsutsumi et al col. 10 lines 47-57. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the teachings inverting the wafer to the rear surface so that that the coating film can be removed on the rear surface in any treatment/processing steps and in the desired chronological order of processing as desired in order to enhance the apparatus to treat the desired surfaces of the wafer being top, rear, or edge. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the patent with the prior art of Tsutsumi et al. Regarding claim 7. The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 6, further comprising: a second inverting unit configured to invert the rear surface of the substrate, which is obtained after being processed by the foreign substance removing unit, upside down. See claim 9 of the patent where it recites a second substrate reversal imaging section (second inverting unit). Regarding claim 8. The claims of the patent fail to specifically claim that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit and before the substrate is subjected to an exposure processing. Presently, the claims are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation wherein the chronological order of the process steps are interpreted as a matter of an intended use. Furthermore, the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit and before the substrate is subjected to an exposure processing see col. 10 lines 25-40. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent with the teachings of the prior art of Tsutsumi et al is that the order of the process steps performed by the apparatus is a matter of design choice that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue routine experimentation to ensure the desired product result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the patent with the prior art of Tsutsumi et al to ensure that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit and before the substrate is subjected to an exposure processing Regarding claim 9. The claims of the patent fail to specifically claim that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the substrate is carried into the film processing unit and before the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit. Presently, the claims are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation wherein the chronological order of the process steps are interpreted as a matter of an intended use. Furthermore, the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the substrate is carried into the film processing unit and before the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit see col. 10 lines 25-40. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent with the teachings of the prior art of Tsutsumi et al is that the order of the process steps performed by the apparatus is a matter of design choice that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue routine experimentation to ensure the desired product result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the patent with the prior art of Tsutsumi et al to ensure that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the substrate is carried into the film processing unit and before the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit. Regarding claim 10. The claims of the patent fail to the resist film forming unit forms the resist film on the front surface of the substrate by supplying, to the front surface of the substrate, another processing liquid configured to form the resist film, and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises: a first drain line configured to drain the another processing liquid to an outside of the substrate processing apparatus from a first processing space in which a processing by the another processing liquid in the resist film forming unit is performed; a first exhaust line configured to exhaust a gas within the first processing space to the outside of the substrate processing apparatus; a second drain line configured to drain, independently of the first drain line, the processing liquid to the outside of the substrate processing apparatus from a second processing space in which a processing by the processing liquid in the film removing unit is performed; and a second exhaust line configured to exhaust, independently of the first exhaust line, a gas within the second processing space to the outside of the substrate processing apparatus. Recall the resist formed on the front surface occurs in resist coating unit 20 of Tsutsumi et al. See Fig. 2 of Tsutsumi et al where resist coating units 20-22 apply a resist solution (see preferred liquid to form the resist listed in the paragraph joining columns 7 and 8) to the wafer. Fig. 13 illustrates an example of film forming unit 300 where resist coating units 20-22 where resist coating unit are an example of film forming units see drain lines 328 are illustrated in film forming unit 300. The gas can be formed using the lamp heating unit 340 to cure the formed film. There would be separate liquid nozzles provided in the resist film forming unit (coating unit) and the coating forming unit 300 to distribute their respective processing fluid to the wafer. Note what fluid is drained from the drain lines is interpreted as a matter of an intended as structurally the drain lines/exhaust lines are capable of draining/exhaust a plethora of fluids to include liquid, gas or a mixture thereof. Drain pipes 228 of Tsutsumi et al are also provided in film removing unit 200 see Fig. 4. Note the drain pipes 228 are independent of drain pipes 328 as they are located in different treatment chambers (200 film removing) and (20 resist/300 film forming). The motivation to modify the apparatus of the patent with the teachings of the prior art of Tsutsumi et al provide structure to exhaust/drain used fluids out of the processing space so that they do not contribute to contamination or increasing the foreign substances that would need be removed as alluded in the claims of the patent. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the patent with the prior art of Tsutsumi et al to provide drain pipes/exhaust lines to expel used fluids (to include gas, liquid, or a mixture thereof ) from the apparatus as necessary to ensure ample exhaust and lessen the contamination of the apparatus and or substrate. Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent 12, 622, 201 in view of Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872) as applied to claims 1, 3-10, and 12 and in further view of Miyahara (US 2019/0084117). Regarding claim 2. Recall in claim 1 of the patent where a brush is recited for polishing or removing foreign substances on the second (rear) surface. The claims of the patent do not specifically claim that the brush is a cleaning brush, the foreign substance removing unit polishes the rear surface of the substrate by moving a polishing brush, which is different from the cleaning brush, along the rear surface of the substrate, while keeping the polishing brush in contact with the rear surface of the substrate, and after polishing the rear surface of the substrate, the foreign substance removing unit cleans the rear surface of the substrate by moving the cleaning brush along the rear surface of the substrate, while keeping the cleaning brush in contact with the rear surface of the substrate. Recall the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches scribing brush to clean the front and rear surfaces of the wafer (see col. 1 lines 50-63 and the discussion of scribing brush 370 as illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14) and polishing (planarizing) of the rear surface is also discussed by Tsutsumi et al see lines 19-23 of col. 13 but a polishing brush is not specifically claimed. The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art Tsutsumi et al fails to teach a polishing brush. The prior art of Miyahara teaches using a polishing brush and cleaning brush to enhance removal of desired films see polishing brush 29 recited in [0060] and scrub cleaning using a brush in [0067]. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art Tsutsumi et al to provide a polishing brush is that polishing using a brush enhances removal of unwanted films or substances. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art Tsutsumi et al with the teachings of using a polishing brush as suggested by the prior art of Miyahara to enhance the polishing step discussed by the prior of Tsutsumi et al as using the brush is a known structure to polish the wafer as shown by Miyahara. Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent 12,622, 201 in view of Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872) as applied to claims 1, 3-10, and 12, and in further view of Kodama et al (US 2019/0212653). The teachings of the patent as modified by Tsutsumi et al were discussed above. Note the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches the film removing unit performs a processing of removing the rear surface film on a region of the rear surface of the substrate other than the peripheral portion. See throughout the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches removing the film on the rear surface without mention of include the peripheral portion. See Fig. 2 , Fig. 4, and the paragraph that joins columns 7 and 8 where Tsutsumi et al teaches the central portion of the rear surface film being removed. The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art Tsutsumi et al fails to teach the friction reducing film forming unit forms the friction reducing film at a peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate. The prior art of Kodama et al teaches substrate treatment apparatus wherein friction reducing film forming apparatus is recited in [0059] therein Kodama et al teaches that friction reducing film is formed on the rear surface to include the peripheral portion as the peripheral portion contacts the transfer apparatus and needs to also be protected during support during transport see [0060] and [0103]. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art Tsutsumi et al to form the friction reducing film at a peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate is that further protects the wafer from scratches and stress when the substrate is support even during transport. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art of Tsutsumi et al to form the friction reducing film at a peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate is that further protects the wafer from scratches and stress when the substrate is support even during transport as suggested by Kodama et al. PNG media_image1.png 728 726 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 738 569 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 773 732 media_image3.png Greyscale See Figures 2, 4, and 13 of Tsutsumi et al above Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being rejected by Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872) . Regarding claims 1 and 12: The prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches a substrate treatment system with a resist film forming unit 20, film forming unit 300, a film removing unit 200, a foreign substance removing unit (scribing brush 370 has a moving mechanism 375 see the paragraph joining paragraphs 13 and 14 of Tsutsumi et al. See in column 14 lines 1-44 of Tsutsumi et al that the brush contacts the rear surface of the wafer after the cleaning (film removing step). Planarizing of the rear surface is recited in the second paragraph of col. 13. See col. 10 line 25 where Tsutsumi et al recites that the resist film is formed on the front surface of the wafer in the resist coating unit 20. See the abstract where it recites that a coating film on the rear surface is removed. Tsutsumi et al teaches photolithography processing (resist coating treatment), exposure processing, developing treatment including etching treatment and the apparatus and steps used to ensure a limit on foreign substance contaminating the process result see the abstract and col. 1 lines 22-col. 2 line 11. Tsutsumi et al teaches a transfer body 7 (carry-in/out unit) in Fig. 1. Recall Tsutsumi et al teaches forming a film on the rear surface of the substrate see Fig. 2 and the first paragraph of col. 13 of Tsutsumi et al where coating film 300 is recited. The film formed on the rear surface in Tsutsumi et al is interpreted as friction-reducing due to the following excerpt in Tsutsumi et al: According to the above embodiment, the coating film is formed on the rear surface of the wafer W in the coating film forming apparatus 300 immediately after the exposure processing for the wafer W is performed in the exposure processing apparatus 8, so that even if the coating film on the rear surface of the wafer W gets minute scratches during the etching treatment and the transfer of the wafer W before reaching the exposure processing apparatus 8, the rear surface of the wafer W itself is protected by the coating film and thus never scratched. In the photolithography processing subsequently performed, the coating film on the rear surface of the wafer W is removed in the coating film removing apparatus 200 immediately before the exposure processing is performed in the exposure processing apparatus 8, so that the rear surface of the wafer W can be flat without projections and depressions for the exposure processing. Tsutsumi et al refers to horizontally holding the wafer during exposure. Regarding claim 3. The prior art of Tsutsumi et al also teaches an inverting unit (transfer arm 260) and a turning mechanism 363 for supporting the transfer arm 360, a shaft 364 connected to the lower surface of the turning mechanism 363, the raising and lowering mechanism 365 connected to the lower end portion of the shaft 364, and the transfer mechanism 366 for supporting the raising and lowering mechanism 365 have the same configurations as those of the turning mechanism 263, the shaft 264, the raising and lowering mechanism 265, and the transfer mechanism 266 in the coating film removing apparatus 200, and thus can inver t the front and rear surfaces of the wafer W held by the transfer arm 360, and move the wafer W in the horizontal direction (the X-direction) and raise and lower the wafer W that can invert the front and rear surfaces of the wafer see Tsutsumi et al col. 10 lines 47-57. See Figs. 4 and 13 of Tsutsumi et al above. Regarding claim 4. See paragraph 4 of column 13 of Tsutsumi et al where the scribing brush 370 cleans the rear surface of the wafer. See also Fig. 13 above. Regarding claim 5. See paragraph 4 of column 13 of Tsutsumi et al where the scribing brush 370 cleans the rear surface of the wafer. Turning mechanism 363 supports transfer arm 360 to invert the surfaces of the wafer between the rear and front see col. 10 lines 47-57 of Tsutsumi et al. See also Fig. 13 above. Regarding claim 6. The prior art of Tsutsumi et al also teaches transfer arm 260 and a turning mechanism 363 for supporting the transfer arm 360, a shaft 364 connected to the lower surface of the turning mechanism 363, the raising and lowering mechanism 365 connected to the lower end portion of the shaft 364, and the transfer mechanism 366 for supporting the raising and lowering mechanism 365 have the same configurations as those of the turning mechanism 263, the shaft 264, the raising and lowering mechanism 265, and the transfer mechanism 266 in the coating film removing apparatus 200, and thus can inver t the front and rear surfaces of the wafer W held by the transfer arm 360, and move the wafer W in the horizontal direction (the X-direction) and raise and lower the wafer W that can invert the front and rear surfaces of the wafer see Tsutsumi et al col. 10 lines 47-57. Turning mechanisms 263 and 363 are interpreted as inverting units. See Figs. 4 and 13 of Tsutsumi et al above. Regarding claim 7. Turning mechanisms 263 and 363 are interpreted as inverting units. See Figs. 4 and 13 of Tsutsumi et al above. Regarding claim 8. Presently, the claims are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation wherein the chronological order of the process steps are interpreted as a matter of an intended use. Furthermore, the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches that the film removing unit /resist forming unit 300 and the foreign substance removing unit (370) process the rear surface of the substrate after the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit and before the substrate is subjected to an exposure processing see col. 10 lines 25-40 and see Fig. 13 of Tsutsumi et al above. Regarding claim 9. Presently, the claims are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation wherein the chronological order of the process steps are interpreted as a matter of an intended use. Furthermore, the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches that the film removing unit and the foreign substance removing unit process the rear surface of the substrate after the substrate is carried into the film processing unit and before the resist film is formed on the front surface of the substrate by the resist film forming unit see col. 10 lines 25-40. Regarding claim 10. Recall the resist formed on the front surface occurs in resist coating unit 20 (structured line film forming chamber 300) of Tsutsumi et al. See Fig. 2 of Tsutsumi et al where resist coating units 20-22 apply a resist solution (see preferred liquid to form the resist listed in the paragraph joining columns 7 and 8) to the wafer. Fig. 13 illustrates an example of film forming unit 300 where resist coating units 20-22 where resist coating unit are an example of film forming units see drain lines 328 are illustrated in film forming unit 300. The gas can be formed using the lamp heating unit 340 to cure the formed film. Drain pipes 228 of Tsutsumi et al are also provided in film removing unit 200 see Fig. 4. Note the drain pipes 228 are independent of drain pipes 328 as they are located in different treatment chambers (200 film removing) and (20 resist/300 film forming). There would be separate liquid nozzles provided in the resist film forming unit (coating unit) and the coating forming unit 300. Note what fluid is drained from the drain lines is interpreted as a matter of an intended as structurally the drain lines/exhaust lines are capable of draining/exhaust a plethora of fluids to include liquid, gas or a mixture thereof . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872) in view of Miyahara (US 2019/0084117) . Regarding claim 2. Recall the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches scribing brush to clean the front and rear surfaces of the wafer (see col. 1 lines 50-63 and the discussion of scribing brush 370 as illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14) and polishing (planarizing) of the rear surface is also discussed by Tsutsumi et al see lines 19-23 of col. 13 but a polishing brush is not specifically claimed. The prior art of Miyahara teaches using a polishing brush and cleaning brush to enhance removal of desired films see polishing brush 29 recited in [0060] and scrub cleaning using a brush in [0067]. The motivation to modify the apparatus of the prior art Tsutsumi et al to provide a polishing brush as suggested by the prior art of Miyahara is that polishing using a brush enhances removal of unwanted films or substances. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modify the apparatus of the prior art Tsutsumi et al with the teachings of using a polishing brush as suggested by the prior art of Miyahara to enhance the polishing step as using the brush is a known structure to polish the wafer as shown by Miyahara . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi et al (US 8,366,872) in view of Kodama et al (US 2019/0212653) . The teachings of Tsutsumi et al were discussed above. Note the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches the film removing unit performs a processing of removing the rear surface film on a region of the rear surface of the substrate other than the peripheral portion. See throughout the prior art of Tsutsumi et al teaches removing the film on the rear surface without mention of include the peripheral portion. See Fig. 2 , Fig. 4, and the paragraph that joins columns 7 and 8 where Tsutsumi et al teaches the central portion of the rear surface film being removed. The prior art Tsutsumi et al fails to teach the friction reducing film forming unit forms the friction reducing film at a peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate. The prior art of Kodama et al teaches substrate treatment apparatus wherein friction reducing film forming apparatus is recited in [0012], [0059] therein Kodama et al teaches that friction reducing film is formed on the rear surface to include the peripheral portion as the peripheral portion contacts the transfer apparatus and needs to also be protected during support during transport see [0060] and [0103]. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the patent and the prior art Tsutsumi et al to form the friction reducing film at a peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate is that further protects the wafer from scratches and stress when the substrate is support even during transport. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Tsutsumi et al to form the friction reducing film at a peripheral portion of the rear surface of the substrate is that further protects the wafer from scratches and stress when the substrate is support even during transport as suggested by Kodama et al . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheung et al (US 6, 136, 163) teaches an apparatus for electrochemical deposition with thermal anneal chamber with a flipper robot 248 that is interpreted as an inverting unit to change the orientation of the substrate so that the substrate is flipped upside down to process the rear surface. 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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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. /SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/318,041 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/318,041 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716
Prosecution Insights