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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 11/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanno et al. (US20190355574).
Regarding claim 1, Kanno et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract), comprising: a liquid processing apparatus 16A capable of forming a liquid film on a surface of a substrate (see paragraphs [0038]-[0039], figure 1); a supercritical drying apparatus 16B capable of drying the substrate by replacing the liquid film with a supercritical fluid (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0066]-[0068], figures 1, 5C); a first load-lock apparatus capable of switching an atmosphere around the substrate from a first one of a normal pressure atmosphere and a decompressed pressure atmosphere to a second one of the normal pressure atmosphere and the decompressed pressure atmosphere on a transfer path of the substrate (see paragraph [0108]); a dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C capable of dry-cleaning the surface of the substrate under a decompressed pressure (see figures 1, 6-9, paragraphs [0085]-[0088], [0098]); and a control device 4 configured to perform forming of the liquid film by the liquid processing apparatus 16A, drying of the substrate by the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, switching of the atmosphere around the substrate by the first load-lock apparatus, and dry-cleaning of the substrate by the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C in this order (see figures 1, 5C, 6-8 paragraphs [0038]-[0040], [0050]-[0052], claims 1, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 6, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figures 1-2, paragraph [0063], a second block (see top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, a second transfer section (see section between 16A and 16B in the top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section, wherein, in the second block, the liquid processing apparatus 16A and the supercritical drying apparatus 16B are disposed to face each other in a horizontal direction with the second transfer section therebetween.
Regarding claim 9, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figure 1, paragraphs [0046]-[0049], [0108], a second block 3 having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, the first load-lock apparatus, the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a second transfer section (see portion of section 15 under normal pressure) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 17 configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section, wherein the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, and the first load-lock apparatus are disposed adjacent to the second transfer section, and the drying cleaning apparatus 16C/161C is disposed adjacent to the first load-lock apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figures 1-2, paragraphs [0039], [0063], a third block (see bottom row below 15, as shown in figure 1) having the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a third transfer section (see section between 16A and 16C, as shown in figure 1) under the decompressed pressure atmosphere, and a third transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the third transfer section, wherein the third block further has an etching apparatus 16A configured to etch the surface of the substrate under the decompressed pressure.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 2-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al. (US20190355574) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figure 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0037, [0040], [0059], [0063], [0108] a first block (see column of carriers C, as shown in figure 1) having a first placing table configured to place thereon a cassette C accommodating therein the substrate, a first transfer section (see transfer section adjacent carriers C, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a first transfer device 13 configured to transfer the substrate in the first transfer section; a second block (see top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, a second transfer section (see section between 16A and 16B in the top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section; a third block (see row below 15 as shown in figure 1) having the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a third transfer section (see e.g. portion of 15 under vacuum) under the decompressed pressure atmosphere, and a third transfer device (see e.g. non-illustrated substrate transfer device configured to transfer wafer in the vacuum atmosphere) configured to transfer the substrate in the third transfer section; and a transition apparatus 14, 17 configured to deliver the substrate between the first transfer device 13 and the second transfer device 161B, wherein the first block, the transition apparatus, the second block, the first load-lock apparatus, and the third block are arranged adjacent each other. Kanno et al. does not explicitly teach the particular arrangement whereby the first block, the transition apparatus, the second block, the first load-lock apparatus, and the third block are arranged in a row in a horizontal direction in this order. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the different operating units may be arranged relative to one another in a manner that optimizes the arrangement of the system based on the available space. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 3, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figure 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0037, [0040], [0059], [0063], [0108], a first block (see column of carriers C, as shown in figure 1) having a first placing table configured to place thereon a cassette C accommodating therein the substrate, a first transfer section (see transfer section adjacent carriers C, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a first transfer device 13 configured to transfer the substrate in the first transfer section; a second block (see top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, a second transfer section (see section between 16A and 16B in the top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section; a third block (see row below 15 as shown in figure 1) having the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a third transfer section (see e.g. portion of 15 under vacuum) under the decompressed pressure atmosphere, and a third transfer device (see e.g. non-illustrated substrate transfer device configured to transfer wafer in the vacuum atmosphere) configured to transfer the substrate in the third transfer section; a load-lock apparatus configured to switch the atmosphere around the substrate from a first one of the normal pressure atmosphere and the decompressed pressure atmosphere to a second one of the normal pressure atmosphere and the decompressed pressure atmosphere on a transfer path of the substrate, wherein the first block, the load-lock apparatus, the third block, and the second block are arranged adjacent each other (see e.g. figure 1, paragraph [0108]). Kanno et al. does not explicitly teach that the load-lock apparatus is a second load lock apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the number of load lock apparatuses may be increased so as to allow for a greater ability to transport and house substrates between the normal and low pressure environments. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Kanno et al. does not explicitly teach the particular arrangement whereby the first block, the second load-lock apparatus, the third block, the first load-lock apparatus, and the second block are arranged in a row in a horizontal direction in this order. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the different operating units may be arranged relative to one another in a manner that optimizes the arrangement of the system based on the available space. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 4, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figure 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0037], [0040], [0046]-[0048], [0059], [0063], [0108] a first block (see column of carriers C, as shown in figure 1) having a first placing table configured to place thereon a first cassette C accommodating therein the substrate, a first transfer section (see transfer section adjacent carriers C, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a first transfer device 13 configured to transfer the substrate in the first transfer section; a second block (see top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, a second transfer section (see section between 16A and 16B in the top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section; a third block (see row below 15 as shown in figure 1) having the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a third transfer section (see e.g. portion of 15 under vacuum) under the decompressed pressure atmosphere, and a third transfer device (see e.g. non-illustrated substrate transfer device configured to transfer wafer in the vacuum atmosphere) configured to transfer the substrate in the third transfer section; a transition apparatus 14, 17 configured to deliver the substrate between the first transfer device 13 and the second transfer device 161B; and wherein the first block, the transition apparatus 14, 17, the second block, the first load-lock apparatus, the third block, and the fourth block are arranged adjacent each other. Kanno et al. does not teach a fourth block having a second placing table configured to place thereon a second cassette accommodating therein the substrate, a fourth transfer section under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a fourth transfer device configured to transfer the substrate in the fourth transfer section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an additional block with additional cassette, transfer section and transfer device may be included in the system by Kanno et al. so as to allow for increased capacity to accommodate and transport substrates. Kanno et al. also does not teach a second load-lock apparatus configured to switch the atmosphere around the substrate from a first one of the normal pressure atmosphere and the decompressed pressure atmosphere to a second one of the normal pressure atmosphere and the decompressed pressure atmosphere on a transfer path of the substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the number of load lock apparatuses may be increased so as to allow for a greater ability to transport and house substrates between the normal and low pressure environments. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Kanno et al. does not teach the particular arrangement whereby the first block, the transition apparatus, the second block, the first load-lock apparatus, the third block, the second load-lock apparatus, and the fourth block are arranged in a row in a horizontal direction in this order. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the different operating units may be arranged relative to one another in a manner that optimizes the arrangement of the system based on the available space. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figure 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0037], [0040], [0046]-[0048], [0059], [0063], [0108] a first block (see column of carriers C, as shown in figure 1) having a first placing table configured to place thereon a first cassette C accommodating therein the substrate, a first transfer section (see transfer section adjacent carriers C, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a first transfer device 13 configured to transfer the substrate in the first transfer section; a second block (see top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, a second transfer section (see section between 16A and 16B in the top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section; a third block (see row below 15 as shown in figure 1) having the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a third transfer section (see e.g. portion of 15 under vacuum) under the decompressed pressure atmosphere, and a third transfer device (see e.g. non-illustrated substrate transfer device configured to transfer wafer in the vacuum atmosphere) configured to transfer the substrate in the third transfer section; and a transition apparatus 14, 17 configured to deliver the substrate between the first transfer device 13 and the second transfer device 161B, wherein the transition apparatus 14, 17 is disposed between the first block and the second block, and the first load-lock apparatus is disposed between the first block and the third block; and that operating units may be stacked upon each other in a vertical direction (see figures 2-3, paragraph [0046]). Kanno et al. does not teach that the second block and the third block are stacked on top of each other in a vertical direction, or that the transition apparatus and the first load-lock apparatus are stacked on top of each other in the vertical direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the liquid processing apparatus and supercritical drying apparatus may be stacked vertically so as to optimize the arrangement of the system based on the available space. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches in figures 1-3, paragraphs [0046], [0063] a second block (see top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) having the liquid processing apparatus 16A, the supercritical drying apparatus 16B, a second transfer section (see section between 16A and 16B in the top row above 15, as shown in figure 1) under the normal pressure atmosphere, and a second transfer device 161B configured to transfer the substrate in the second transfer section, wherein, in the second block the liquid processing apparatus 16A and the supercritical drying apparatus 16B are disposed on two sides of the second transfer section; and that operating units may be stacked upon each other in a vertical direction (see figures 2-3, paragraph [0046]). Kanno et al. does not teach that the liquid processing apparatus and the supercritical drying apparatus are stacked on top of each other in a vertical direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the liquid processing apparatus and supercritical drying apparatus may be stacked vertically so as to optimize the arrangement of the system based on the available space. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 8, Kanno et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kanno et al. also teaches figures 1, 6-9, paragraphs [0063], [0098]-[0099], [0108] a third block 3 having the drying cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, a third transfer section (see e.g. portion of 15 under vacuum) under the decompressed pressure atmosphere, a third transfer device (see e.g. non-illustrated substrate transfer device configured to transfer wafer in the vacuum atmosphere) configured to transfer the substrate in the third transfer section, and a load-lock apparatus configured to switch a decompression degree of the atmosphere around the substrate between the third transfer section and the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C, wherein the dry-cleaning apparatus 16C/161C has a cleaning chamber in which the substrate is accommodated, and a pressure of the third transfer section may be lower than a normal pressure and higher than a pressure of the cleaning chamber (since the vacuum pump 85 is connected to the cleaning chamber, as shown in figure 9). Kanno et al. does not explicitly teach that the load-lock apparatus is a third load lock apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the number of load lock apparatuses may be increased so as to allow for a greater ability to transport and house substrates between the normal and low pressure environments. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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 BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711