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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected substrate processing method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 12, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on November, 19 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all groups are sufficiently related to each other that an indue burden would not be placed to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because groups initially identified in the restriction requirement mailed on July 31, 202s require separate classifications, separate statuses in the art, and different fields of search. As a result, the groups present an undue search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindou (US 2011/0041874 A1) in view of (Yamada US 20220214109 A1)
PNG
media_image1.png
758
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
603
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Shindou teaches a substrate (“semi-conductor wafer serving as the target substrate” [0015] Figure 1 Element “W”) processing apparatus (“apparatus for removing a polymer annularly adhered to a peripheral portion of a target substrate”) [0007]) comprising:
a processing container (“chamber” [0016 Figure 1 Element 11) ;
a substrate stage (“mounting table” [0016] Figure 1 Element 12) configured to place the substrate thereon within the processing container and support at least a portion of the substrate excluding a peripheral edge (“mounting table 12 has a mounting surface 12a for mounting thereon a portion of the wafer W excluding the peripheral portion” [0016] Figure 1);
a heater (“laser irradiation head” Figure 1 Element 20) configured to irradiate the peripheral edge of the substate (“semi-conductor wafer serving as the target substrate” [0015] Figure 1 Element “W”), thereby heating a substance (the application of the invention onto a “carbon-containing substance is understood as intended use and does not further limit the claims) present at the peripheral edge (Shown contained within the irradiated region “L” in Figure 1)
and a gas supply (Figure 1 Element 19 “Ozone gas supply source”) configured to supply an oxygen-containing gas (it is understood that Ozone is an oxygen containing gas) to the peripheral edge of the substrate (via “ozone gas injection openings” Figure 1 Element 15 [0017]) .
Shindou does not teach that the heater is an LED heater including a plurality of LED elements and configured to irradiate the substrate with LED light from the plurality of LED elements
However, Yamada does teach a heat treatment apparatus (“heat treatment apparatus” [0044]) for a substrate (“semiconductor wafer W serving as a substrate “ [0044]) wherein the heater is an LED heater (“LED Heating Part [0045] Figure 1 Element 4) including a plurality of LED elements (“the LED heating part 4 [include] a plurality of built-in light emitting diode (LED) lamps” [0045]) led lamps” Figure 7 Element 45) and configured to irradiate the peripheral edge of substrate (the elements of the LED heating part are “disposed to be inclined with respect to a horizontal plane so that the center of a concentric circle is directed to a peripheral edge part of the substrate” [0016] with LED light from the plurality of LED elements (“The heat treatment apparatus includes the plurality of LED lamps irradiating the substrate …[such that] the substrate can be efficiently heated.” [0012])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the laser heater of Shindou with the LED heater of Yamada as it has been held that it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). In this case, Shindou teaches a substrate treatment apparatus which differs from the claimed invention in its possession of a laser heater rather than the claimed LED heater. However, the equivalent function of an LED Heater to a laser heater in a substrate processing apparatus is known as supported by Yamada cited above. 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 substate processing apparatus of Shindou by replacing the Laser Heater with an LED heater because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the combination, the LED heater is in the same place as the laser heater, and the light is reflected by the reflector to heat the underside of the edge.
Regarding Claim 14: Shindou as modified by Yamada does not teach that the wavelength of the LED light emitted from the LED elements ranges from 1.5 µm to 3 µm.
However, Yamada discloses 900 nm. Yamada [0087] teaches that wavelength is a result effective variable for absorption by a particular media. The 900 nm light is optimized for the substrate, but it would be obvious to optimize for absorption by the polymer, arriving at a wavelength of 1.5 to 3 micrometers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada such that the light emitted ranges from 1.5 µm to 3 µm. as it has been held that routine optimization (in this case of the wavelength to account for the properties of the substrate) requires only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding Claim 15: Shindou as modified by Yamada further teaches that an inner surface of the processing container is mirror-finished (Shindou- the processing container has an inner surface “bowl-shaped cylindrical mirror member 22 having a mirror surface (reflection surface) 22 a at an upper surface thereof is provided outside the mounting table 12 [0021])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindou (US2011/0041874 A1) and Yamada in further view of Collins (US 2008/0179291 A1)
Regarding Claim 16: Shindou as modified by Yamada teaches the heat (“heat” [0006]) treatment of an edge polymer for the purpose of removal.
Shindou as modified by Yamada does not teach that a temperature of the carbon-containing substance (the application of the invention onto a “carbon-containing substance is understood as intended use and does not further limit the claims) heated by the LED light is 300C or less
However, Collins does teach an invention for polymer removal (“removing polymer” [0033]) wherein the polymer is heated to 300C or less (between a temperature “under 200 degrees C” [0080] and up to “about 300 degrees C)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada such that the substance is heated to 300 degrees C or less as disclosed by Collins in order to allow more control over the “reaction rate of the polymer” [0080] .
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindou (US 2011/0041874 A1) and Yamada (US 2022/0214109 A1) in further view of Sato US 20170040231 A1
PNG
media_image4.png
361
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8: Shindou as modified by Yamada further teaches that the gas supplied is an oxygen containing gas
Shindou as modified by Yamada does not teach a shield configured to shield a flow of the oxygen-containing gas from the peripheral edge of the substrate to a central portion of the substrate.
However, Sato does teach a substrate processing apparatus (“substrate processing apparatus” [0035]) with a shield (“Shielding Plate” [0053] Figure 7 Element 23) configured to shield a flow of gas from the peripheral edge of the substrate (‘wafer” [0052] Figure 7 Element 1) to a central portion of the substrate (shown in Figure 7 in which the shielding unit covers the central portion of the substrate in order to shield central portion of the substrate from the “gas”) .
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada such that the apparatus incorporates a shield as taught by Sato in order to ensure that “[processing] may be performed to only the circumferential edge portion of the wafer” [0056] while the central portion is protected.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindou (US 2011/0041874 A1) and Yamada (US 2022/0214109 A1) and Sato US 20170040231 A1 in further view of Oureghi (US 2016/0093507A1)
Regarding Claim 13: Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato does not teach that the outer circumferential surface of the shield is mirror finished.
However, Oureghi does teach an invention for substrate (“substrate” [0077] processing with a shield (“reflective area” [0077]) wherein the outer circumference of the shield is mirror finished (“has a high reflectivity” [0077])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato such that the shield also has a reflective surface as disclosed by Oureghi in order to allow areas that should not be processes to be “protected from radiation” [0077])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2: Shindou as modified by Yamada discloses that the LED Heater includes a ringlike overall shape (See Figure 7). However, the prior art of record does not teach disclose or suggest that the LED heater has a diameter larger than the substrate stage. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada such that this limitation is met because doing so would prevent the reflectors of Shindou from reaching their target location which is the bottom surface of the substrate edges.
Claims 3-7 are objected to based on their dependence on Claim 2 which is dependent to the rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato further teaches that an outer periphery (Sato- See Figure 7 as annotated which shows the outer periphery extending upward) of the shield (Sato- “Shielding Plate” [0053] Figure 7 Element 23) extends from a ceiling wall of the processing container (Shindou- See Figure 1 As annotated) to a position close to the substrate (Sato- Figure 7) on the substrate stage (Shindou- “mounting table” [0016] Figure 1 Element 12), and the gas supply (Shindou-Figure 1 Element 19 “gas supply source”) supplies an inert gas (Shindou- “ozone”)such that the inert gas flows outwards from a gap (Shindou- “Gas Diffusion Space” [0017] Figure 1 Element 16). However, Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato does not teach that the gas flows between the outer periphery and the substrate. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art such that this limitation.
Regarding Claim 10: Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato teaches that the shield has an outer circumferential wall (Sato-See Figure 7 as annotated) and that the gas supply (Shindou- Figure 1 Element 19 “gas supply source”) supplies the inert gas (Yamada- “An inert gas such as nitrogen (N2), a reactive gas such as hydrogen (H2) and ammonia (NH3), or a gas mixture thereof”[0051] ) to the space such that the inert gas flows outwards from the gap (Shindou- “Gas Diffusion Space” [0017] Figure 1 Element 16). However, the prior of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest that the shield has a cylindrical shape and a space formed inside the outer circumferential wall, and that the gap is formed between a lower end of the outer circumferential wall and the substrate on the substrate stage. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato such that this limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 11: Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato does not teach, disclose or suggest that the size of the gap is 1mm or less. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada such that this limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 12: Shindou as modified by Yamada and Sato does not teach, disclose or suggest that an outer diameter of the shield is larger than an outer diameter of the substrate stage. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shindou as modified by Yamada such that this limitation is met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights