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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 9-20 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden for the search. This is not found persuasive because as outlined in the restriction requirement, claims 9-20 are found within a different class and subclass from the claims 1-8. Additionally, the method of claims 9-15 are directed at the cleaning and treating of a substrate while claims 16-20 are an apparatus claim set.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6221171 (Maekawa hereinafter) in view of US 2018/0358242 (Kim hereinafter) and further in view of US 2013/0061888 (Sato hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa teaches a method of treating a substrate that discloses performing an exposure process on a substrate (Polishing stage within 30); removing moisture on the substrate after the exposure process (Column 7 Lines 27-42); performing a wetting process on the substrate from which the moisture is removed (Column 7 Lines 27-42); wherein removing the moisture on the substrate includes: measuring a weight of the substrate (Column 7 Lines 27-42).
Maekawa is silent with respect to performing a drying process on the substrate after the wetting process; wherein performing the drying process on the substrate includes: placing the substrate into a dry chamber; and supplying the dry chamber with a supercritical fluid to dry a fluid on the substrate.
However, Kim teaches a substrate treating method that discloses performing a drying process on the substrate after the wetting process (Figure 12 in step S120 as applied to the process of Maekawa); wherein performing the drying process on the substrate includes: placing the substrate into a dry chamber (Figure 12, placement into the processing space in step S110); and supplying the dry chamber with a supercritical fluid to dry a fluid on the substrate (Step S120 per ¶ 100-101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treating operation of Maekawa with the drying process of Kim to further ensure that the substrate is dried and no impurities are present on the substrate.
Maekawa is silent with respect that removing the moisture on the substrate includes heating the substrate whose weight is measured.
However, Sato teaches a substrate treating method that discloses that removing the moisture on the substrate includes heating the substrate whose weight is measured (¶ 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the moisture removal of Maekawa with the heating of Sato to further dry the substrate as required.
Regarding claim 2, Maekawa’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Maekawa, Kim, and Sato that would further disclose that removing the moisture on the substrate further includes calculating an amount of moisture based on the measured weight of the substrate to determine a heating condition of the substrate (Maekawa Column 7 Lines 27-42 paired with Sato ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 3, Maekawa’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Maekawa, Kim, and Sato that would further disclose that measuring the weight of the substrate includes: performing a first measurement to measure the weight of the substrate using a substrate weight measuring apparatus (Pre-measurement of Maekawa in Column 7 Lines 34-38); transferring the substrate to an outside of the substrate weight measuring apparatus after the first measurement (Any treatment stage before being placed on the spinning chuck of Maekawa); and after transferring the substrate to the outside of the substrate weight measuring apparatus, performing a second measurement to measure the weight of the substrate (Second weight measurement performed by the load cell 35 of Maekawa).
Regarding claim 4, Maekawa’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Maekawa, Kim, and Sato that would further disclose that determining the heating condition of the substrate includes: calculating an amount of the moisture on the substrate using a difference in weights between the first measurement and the second measurement (Maekawa Column 7 Lines 34-42); and determining a heating time or a heating temperature of the substrate based on the calculated amount of the moisture (Sato ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 5, Maekawa’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Maekawa, Kim, and Sato that would further disclose that performing the exposure process on the substrate is implemented by an exposure apparatus (Broadest reasonable interpretation of the exposure process from the rejection of claim 1), and performing the second measurement to measure the weight of the substrate (Evident from Maekawa’s load cell measuring the weight of the substrate after the prior procedures), performing the wetting process on the substrate (Maekawa Column 7 Lines 27-42), and performing the drying process on the substrate are each implemented by a substrate drying system spaced apart from the exposure apparatus (Evident from the structure of Maekawa in Figure 1 separating each step and Kim detailing the drying chamber).
Regarding claim 6, Maekawa’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Maekawa, Kim, and Sato that would further disclose that the substrate drying system includes the substrate weight measuring apparatus, wherein performing the first measurement is implemented by the substrate drying system (Resultant combination of Maekawa and Kim where the load cell 35 of Maekawa can be present in the drying chamber of Kim).
Regarding claim 7, Maekawa’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of Maekawa, Kim, and Sato that would further disclose that the substrate weight measuring apparatus is spaced apart from the substrate drying system (The initial weight of the substrate is known in a prior area per Maekawa Column 7 Lines 34-42).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6221171 (Maekawa) in view of US 2018/0358242 (Kim) and further in view of US 2013/0061888 (Sato) and further in view of US 2022/0056383 (Kinuta hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Maekawa’s modifeid teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that performing the wetting process on the substrate includes coating n-butyl acetate (nBA) on the substrate.
However, Kinuta teaches the treatment of substrates that discloses a wetting procedure with a pre-wetting step utilizing nBa (¶ 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wetting procedure of Maekawa with the use of nBa as taught in Kinuta to improve the surface’s ability to have cleaning liquid applied to it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights