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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/415499 filed January 17, 2024. Claims 13-28 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 13-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (US 2011/0286738).
Regarding claim 13: Noda et al. discloses a liquid processing apparatus and process including a spin chuck (41) which is a stage onto which a wafer (W) is placed, a plurality of nozzles (10) supplying processing liquid (R) to the wafer (W), a camera (17) which is a capturing part that captures an image of the nozzles (10) and a controller (9) having a decision unit (9b) which is a detector that analyzes the image data from the camera (17) at different time intervals to determine whether changes occurred inside the nozzle (10) where one of those changes can be the level of the coating liquid (R) inside the nozzle (10) passage (10e) (pars. 59-60, 77, 95, 124, figures 2-3, 12).
Regarding claims 14 and 15: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) determines properties of the liquid (R) inside the nozzle (10) by analyzing the different brightness levels of the image taken by the camera (17), which inherently uses pixel data (pars. 94-96, figure 7).
Regarding claims 16 and 17: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) determines whether a change has occurred in the liquid level based on a predetermined level (P) and by comparing brightness levels of various points inside the passage (10e) of the nozzle (10) shown in the image captured by the camera (17A) which inherently uses pixel data (par. 165, figures 10, 12-13).
Regarding claim 22: Noda et al. discloses that detector is a controller (9) which is programmed to perform countermeasure operations if the detected signal shows an abnormal liquid position (pars. 85, 101, 111, figure 6).
Regarding claim 23: Noda et al. discloses that the apparatus supplies a photoresist solution but also a thinner to the nozzle (10) (par. 63) where thinner is another term for anti-drying liquid, further including a suck-back valve (73) which suctions the thinner from the nozzle (10) (par. 70), and furthermore that the time intervals are within a period during which the coating liquid (R) is being spouted by normal spouting action, such that the suction is not being performed (par. 95).
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.
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. as applied to claims 13-17 and 22-23 above and further in view of Hasebe et al. (US 5,942,035).
Regarding claims 18 and 19: Noda et al. fails to explicitly disclose a vibration part consisting of a fluid flow path having a temperature control fluid and pump for circulating that fluid. However, Hasebe et al. discloses a similar spin coating apparatus which uses temperature adjustment solution supply paths (11) arranged to surround the nozzle (4) connecting with a circulating pump (13) and thermo module for controlling the temperature of the solutions as well as the resist (col. 7 lines 9-24, figures 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a temperature control mechanism as taught by Hasebe et al. for the spin coating process of Noda et al. because Hasebe et al. teaches that this helps adjust the viscosity such that it more uniformly spreads photoresist without using excessive amounts of solution (col. 1 lines 31-60, col. 10 lines 58-61).
While Noda et al. and Hasebe et al. fail to explicitly disclose that this arrangement causes vibrations, the flow of liquid through the temperature adjustment solution supply paths inherently cause a vibration due to their movement, regardless of how intense the vibration may be, such that this part can be understood as a vibration part which vibrates the liquid within the tubes (7, 8) that contact the temperature adjustment solution (see Hasebe et al. figure 6).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. as applied to claims 13-17 and 22-23 above and further in view of Kunugimoto et al. (US 2015/0234277).
Regarding claim 20: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) includes a storage device (95) containing reference data about the liquids and the nozzle (10) (par. 95). Noda et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the decision unit (9b) is configured to determine the existence or size of a droplet adhering to an outside of the nozzle (10). However, Kunugimoto et al. discloses a similar spin coating apparatus which uses an imaging unit (26) to capture image data about liquid droplets adhering to the outside of the nozzle and the sizes and positions thereof which are then stored in a storage section (CU1), at which point the image data is judged and if the droplet exceeds a certain size an alarm is generated after which a cleaning process takes place (par. 50, 69, 73-74, figure 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a similar analysis of liquid droplets as taught by Kunugimoto et al. adhered to the nozzle (10) of Noda et al. because Kunugimoto et al. teaches that detecting a droplet and performing a predetermined operation to remove the droplet can help prevent occurrence of an abnormality on the substrate caused by the droplet falling unexpectedly (par. 4).
Regarding claim 21: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) is part of a controller (9) which also includes countermeasure management programs that are utilized when information by the decision unit (9b) indicates that something abnormal occurred (par. 85, 111), and in the above combination with Kunugimoto et al. the controller (9) would also perform the droplet size estimation and base the countermeasure on this size (Kunugimoto et al. par. 69-71).
Claims 24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. as applied to claims 13-17 and 22-23 above, and further in view of Tomita et al. (KR 20160112973, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 24: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) determines properties of the liquid (R) inside the nozzle (10) by analyzing the different brightness levels of the pixels in the image taken by the camera (17) (pars. 94-96, figure 7). Noda et al. fails to explicitly disclose creating superimposed image data by superimposing brightness values of the pixels at corresponding positions and basing the liquid property data on this superimposition. However, Tomita et al. discloses a similar spin coating apparatus in which a camera (41) detects an image at the nozzle (31) and in order to analyze the image the image data is created by superimposing the image at a number of different times such that it forms one image data showing accumulated pixel data over that period of time (pages 4, 8, figure 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this superimposition process taught by Tomita et al. for the process of Noda et al. because Tomita et al. teaches that superimposing accumulated image data is more effective in determining actual abnormalities in the nozzle (pages 12-13).
Regarding claim 27: Noda et al. discloses that detector is a controller (9) which is programmed to perform countermeasure operations if the detected signal shows an abnormal liquid position (pars. 85, 101, 111, figure 6).
Regarding claim 28: Noda et al. discloses that the camera (17) can be attached to the nozzle arm (11b) (par. 78) and that the apparatus further includes nozzle baths (14) in a standby section outside of the spin chuck (41) (par. 59, figure 1) such that the camera would additionally capture images while the nozzle (10) is positioned in or above the bath (14), which would also happen while the nozzle vibrates, i.e. by movement along the guide rail (63) (par. 68, figure 1).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. and Tomita et al. as applied to claims 13-17, 22-24 and 27-28 above and further in view of Kunugimoto et al.
Regarding claim 25: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) includes a storage device (95) containing reference data about the liquids and the nozzle (10) (par. 95). Noda et al. and Tomita et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the decision unit (9b) is configured to determine the existence or size of a droplet adhering to an outside of the nozzle (10). However, Kunugimoto et al. discloses a similar spin coating apparatus which uses an imaging unit (26) to capture image data about liquid droplets adhering to the outside of the nozzle and the sizes and positions thereof which are then stored in a storage section (CU1), at which point the image data is judged and if the droplet exceeds a certain size an alarm is generated after which a cleaning process takes place (par. 50, 69, 73-74, figure 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a similar analysis of liquid droplets as taught by Kunugimoto et al. adhered to the nozzle (10) of Noda et al. because Kunugimoto et al. teaches that detecting a droplet and performing a predetermined operation to remove the droplet can help prevent occurrence of an abnormality on the substrate caused by the droplet falling unexpectedly (par. 4).
Regarding claim 26: Noda et al. discloses that the decision unit (9b) is part of a controller (9) which also includes countermeasure management programs that are utilized when information by the decision unit (9b) indicates that something abnormal occurred (par. 85, 111), and in the above combination with Kunugimoto et al. the controller (9) would also perform the droplet size estimation and base the countermeasure on this size (Kunugimoto et al. par. 69-71).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen Kitt Examiner, Art Unit 1717
2/20/2026 /YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/